^>t*^^^ 


..,oU^w  ^'tcatatjfal^^^.'' 


I  0-  9^ 


"^inn. 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


ni 


Shelf 


Division  JE)  S.).2».  .1  b 
Section  ^  .ZEISS' 
Ntitnber  /}X^.^...\ 


K*^ 


r. 


i;    ^'5' 


THE   HIGHER  CRITICISM 

OF 

THE   HEXATEUCH 


DR.  BRIGGS'  WORKS 

AMERICAN  PRESBYTERIANISM.  Its  Origin  and  Early 
History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Letters  and 
Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been  dis- 
covered.    Cr.  bvo,  with  maps $3.00 

MESSIANIC  PROPHECY.  The  Prediction  of  the  Fulfil- 
ment of  Redemption  through  the  Messiah.  A  critical 
study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
in  the  order  of  their  development.    Cr.  8vo,    ,     $2. 5c 

BIBLICAL  STUDY.  Its  Principles,  Methods,  and  Historj- 
of  its  Branches.     Fourth  edition.     Cr.  8vo,     .     $2.50 

WHITHER?  A  Theological  Question  for  the  Times. 
Third  edition.     Cr.  8vo, $1.75 

THE  AUTHORITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE.  An  Inaugural 
Address.      Third   edition.    Cr.    8vo,  paper,      50   cts. 

THE  BIBLE,  THE  CHURCH,  AND  THE  REASON.  The 
Three  Grea-t  Fountains  of  Divine  Authority.  Cr. 
8vo, $1-75 

BIBLICAL  HISTORY.     Cr.  8vo,  paper,  .         .         .     30  cts. 

THE  CASE  AGAINST  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS.  Cr.  Bvo, 
paper, 50  cto. 

THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS.  Cr.  Svo, 
paper, 50  cts 


THE    HIGHER    CRITICISM 


OF 


THE    HEXATEUCH 


BY 


CHARLES   AUGUSTUS' BRIGGS,   D.D. 

EDWARD   ROBINSON   PROFESSOR  OF   BIBLICAL   THEOLOGY  IN  THE 
UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY,    NEW  YORK 


NEW   YORK 

CHARLES   SCRIBNER'S   SONS 

1893 


Copyright,  1892  and  1893,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS. 


PRESS  OF 

EDWARD  O.  JENKINS'  SON, 

NEW  YORK. 


TO 
FRANCIS   BROWN   D.D. 

DAVENPORT    PROFESSOR    OF    HEBREW    AND    THE   COGNATE    LANGUAGES 

IN   THE   UNION   THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY   NEW   YORK 

PUPIL   COLLEAGUE   SUCCESSOR   AND 

TRUE    YOKE-FELLOW 

®l)is  Book 

IS  DEDICATED  IN  TRUST  AND  LOVE 


PREFACE 


Ten  years  ago  the  author  undertook  to  write  a  little 
book  upon  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hcxateuch,  and 
at  that  time  he  advanced  some  distance  in  its  prepara- 
tion. But  on  reflection  he  turned  aside  from  it,  with 
the  opinion  that  the  times  were  not  yet  ripe  for  it. 
He  accordingly  prepared  the  volumes  entitled  Biblical 
Study,  in  1883,  and  Messianic  Prophecy,  in  1886.  He 
has  written  a  number  of  papers  upon  the  Hexateuch  in 
several  different  periodicals,  and  has  ever  kept  in  mind 
the  ultimate  accomplishment  of  his  original  plan.  But 
it  was  his  desire  to  wait  until  the  completion  of  the  new 
Hebrew  Lexicon  in  order  to  use  all  the  wealth  of  its 
fresh  study  of  Hebrew  words  in  the  documents  of  the 
Hexateuch.  It  was  also  his  desire  to  wait  until  he  had 
completed  his  preparatory  studies  in  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism of  the  Psalter,  and  in  the  Biblical  Theology  of  the 
Old  Testament.  These  studies  are  not  in  that  state  of 
forwardness  which  was  anticipated  before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  present  book.  And  yet  they  have  gone  so 
far  as  to  produce  a  considerable  amount  of  fresh  evi- 
dence which  now  appears  for  the  first  time  in  this 
volume. 

The  circumstances  in  which  the  author  is  now  placed 
make  it  necessary  for  him  to  define  his  position  on  the 

(vii) 


viii  PREFACE 

Hexateuch.  For  this  reason  he  presents  to  the  public 
the  result  of  his  studies  so  far  as  they  have  gone.  The 
only  reason  for  any  further  delay  in  publication  would 
be  to  make  the  evidence  for  his  conclusions  more  com- 
prehensive, more  exhaustive,  and  entirely  complete. 
But  he  is  assured  that  the  evidence  is  already  so  varied 
and  comprehensive  that  there  can  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  as  to  the  answers  which  must  be  given  to  the 
chief  questions  which  arise  in  the  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  Hexateuch. 

The  author  has  been  engaged  for  many  years  in  the 
study  of  this  subject,  since  first  he  began  original  work 
upon  it,  in  the  University  of  Berlin,  in  1866,  under  the 
instruction  of  Hengstenberg.  He  has  advanced  steadily 
and  slowly,  by  constant  revision  and  rectification  of  his 
opinions,  until  he  has  attained  the  results  stated  in  this 
volume.  He  is  glad  that  he  is  able  to  say  that  these 
results  correspond  in  the  main  with  the  opinions  which 
have  been  formed  independently  by  leading  Biblical 
scholars  in  all  parts  of  the  world. 

The  book  has  been  written  for  the  general  public, 
rather  than  for  Hebrew  students.  Accordingly  the  text 
has  been  made  as  free  from  technical  matters  as  possi- 
ble, and  a  large  amount  of  material  has  been  put  in  the 
Appendix,  which  thus  becomes  a  volume  by  itself. 

It  is  evident  that  these  questions  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  can  no  longer  be  confined  to  theological 
schools  and  professional  circles.  The  people  desire  to 
consider  them  and  to  know  the  answers  to  them.  It  is 
the  earnest  desire  of  the  author  to  contribute  to  the 
removal  of  traditional  prejudices,  to  the  readjustment 
of  opinions  in  accordance  with  facts,  and  to  a  better 
understanding  and  higher  appreciation  of  the  most  an- 
cient documents  of  our  Holy  Religion. 


CONTENTS. 
I. 

The  Problem,  p.  i. 
(i)  The  Lines  of  Inquiry,  p.  2 ;  (2)  The  Lines  of  Evidence,  p.  4. 

II. 

The  Testimony  of  Holy  Scripture,  p.  6. 

(i)  The  Testimony  of  the  Hexateuch,  p.  6 ;  (2)  The  Testimony 
of  the  Prophets,  p.  13  ;  (3)  The  Law  Book  of  Josiah,  p.  15 ; 
(4)  The  Testimony  of  the  exilic  and  post-exilic  Literature, 
p.  20 ;  (5)  The  Testimony  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  25. 

in. 

The  Traditional  Theories,  p.  31. 

(i)  The  Rabbinical  Theory,  p.  31 ;  (2)  The  Views  of  the  Fathers, 
P-  33 ;  (3)  The  Position  of  the  Reformers,  p.  34. 

IV. 

The  Rise  of  Criticism,  p.  36. 

(i)  Carlstadt,  Masius,  and  Hobbes,  p.  36;  (2)  Objections  of 
Peyrerius  and  Spinoza  to  Mosaic  Authorship,  p.  36 ;  (3) 
Richard  Simon's  Historical  Criticism,  p.  40;  (4)  The  Scho- 
lastic Resistance,  p.  42 ;  (5)  Witsius,  Vitringa,  and  other 
mediating  divines,  p.  43. 

(ix) 


X  CONTENTS 

V. 

The  Documentary  Hypothesis,  p.  46. 

(i)  Jean  Astruc,  p.  46  ;  (2)  The  Evidence  from  the  Divine  Names, 
p.  48 ;  (3)  Eichhorn  and  his  School,  p.  49  ;  (4)  Marsh  and 
Home  defend  the  traditional  opinion,  p.  54;  (5)  Geddes, 
Vater,  and  their  Fragmentary  Hypothesis,  p.  57  ;  (6)  Taylor 
and  Edward  Robinson,  p.  58. 

VI. 

The  Supplementary  Hypothesis,  p.  60. 

(i)  De  Wette  and  his  School,  p.  60;  (2)  Hengstenberg  and  his 
followers,  p.  61  ;  (3)  Hupfeld,  Knobel,  and  Ewald,  p.  63  ;  (4) 
Noeldeke  and  Schradcr,  p.  65;  (5)  Samuel  Davidson,  Pe- 
rowne,  and  Stanley,  p.  66  ;  (6)  Delitzsch,  Kurtz,  and  Kleinert, 
p.  67. 

VII. 

The  Analysis  of  the  Hexateuch,  p.  69. 

(r)  The  Argument  from  Language,  p.  69;  (2)  Differences  of 
Style,  p.  74;  (3)  Parallel  Narratives,  p.  75. 

VIII. 

The  Date  of  Deuteronomy,  p.  81. 

(I)  Argument  for  the  Composition  of  Deuteronomy  shortly  be- 
fore the  reform  of  Josiah,  as  stated  by  Riehm,  p.  81  ;  (2)  As 
enlarged  by  Driver,  p.  83  ;  (3)  The  supposed  Obstacles  to  this 
Theory  tested,  p.  85  ;  (4)  The  old  Mosaic  Code  and  its  re- 
codification in  Deuteronomy,  p.  89. 

IX. 

The  Development  Hypothesis,  p.  90. 

(i)  Edward  Reuss  and  his  school,  p.  90;  (2)  Colenso,  Kuenen, 
and  Kalisch,  p.  92;  (3)  Wellhausen's  analysis  and  its  conse- 
quences, p.  94;  (4)  The  newly  discovered  facts,  p.  96 ;  (5) 
The  new  theory,  p.  96. 


CONTENTS  XI 

X. 

The  Development  of  the  Codes,  p.  99. 

(I)  The  differences  in  point  of  view,  p.  100;  (2)  The  Judaic  code 
and  its  parallels,  p.  loi  ;  (3)  The  Ephraimitic  code  and  its 
parallels,  p.  loi  ;  (4)  The  code  of  Deuteronomy  and  the  code 
of  Holiness,  p.  loi  ;  (5)  The  altars,  p.  loi  ;  (6)  The  sacred 
tent,  p.  103  ;  (7)  The  priesthood,  p.  104  ;  (8)  The  sacritices, 
p.  104;  (9)  The  purifications,  p.  106;  (10)  The  feasts,  p. 
106;  (II)  The  order  of  the  codes,  p.  107;  (12)  The  argu- 
ments against  the  post-exilic  composition  of  the  Priest-code, 
p.  108. 

XL 
The  Witness  of  the  History,  p.  no. 

(i)  Discrepancy  between  the  codes  and  the  history,  p.  no;  (2) 
The  witness  of  the  Literature  to  the  non-observance  of  the 
Law,  p.  118  ;  (3)  The  religious  development  of  Israel,  p.  124  ; 
(4)  The  historians  and  the  codes,  p.  126;  (5)  Ezekiel  and 
the  codes,  p.  126. 

XII. 
The  More  Recent  Discussions,  p.  129. 

(I)  The  case  of  W.  Robertson  Smith,  p.  129  ;  (2)  The  discussion 
in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  p.  130;  (3)  Dillmann,  Baudissin, 
and  Delitzsch,  p.  131;  (4)  Cornill  and  Driver,  p.  134;  (5) 
The  objection  that  the  analysis  makes  the  Hexateuch 
patchwork,  answered  from  Tatian  and  St.  Paul,  p.  137; 
(6)  The  objection  that  the  critics  differ  answered  by  proof 
of  their  concord,  p.  142. 

XIII. 

The  Argument  from  Biblical  Theology,  p.  146. 
(I)  Mode  of  divine  revelation,  p.  146;  (2)  Theophanies,  p.  146; 
(3)  Miracles,  p.  I47  ;  (4)  The  covenants,  p.  149;  ^5)  Prophecy, 
p.  150;  (6)  The  divine  Spirit,  p.  150;  (7)  'ihe  divine  attri- 
butes, p.  151  ;  (8)  The  doctrine  of  sin,  p.  153;  (9)  The  doc- 
trine of  divine  judgment,  p.  154;  (10)  The  doctrine  of  re- 
demption, p.  154. 


xii  CONTENTS 

XIV. 

The  Result  of  the  Argument,  p.  156. 

(i)  The  four  documents  and  the  five  codes,  p.  156  ;  (2)  Driver's 
statement,  p.  157  ;  (3)  The  final  summary,  p.  160. 


APPENDIX. 

I.  The  two  Narratives  of  the  Revelation  of  the 
Divine  Name  Yahweh,  p.  165. 

II.  The  Characteristic  Words  and  Phrases  of  D,  H, 

AND    P  ACCORDING  TO   CaNON    DrIVER,  p.  l68. 

III.  The  Genesis  of  the  Ten  Words,  p.  181. 

IV.  The  two  Narratives  of  the  Pestilence  in  Egypt, 

p.  188. 

V.  The  Decalogue  of  J  and  its  Parallels  in  the  other 
Codes,  p.  189. 

VI.  The  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  its  Par- 
allels  IN   THE   LATER  CODES,  p.  211. 

VII.  Variations  of  D  and  H,  p.  233. 

VIII.  The  several  Representations  of  the  Theophany, 
p.  236. 

INDEXES,  p.  239. 


THE   PROBLEM. 

The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  is  a  phrase 
which  conveys  little  if  any  meaning  to  the  general  public. 
It  is  however  a  technical  phrase  with  a  definite  meaning 
which,  so  soon  as  it  is  explained,  becomes  plain  and  evi- 
dent and  serves  to  fix  the  attention  upon  the  problem  in 
hand  much  better  than  any  paraphrase  could  do. 

The  Hexateuch  is  composed  of  the  Pentateuch  and 
the  book  of  Joshua.  The  Pentateuch  comprehends  the 
five  books  which  in  the  Hebrew  Canon  constitute  the 
Law,  embracing  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
and  Deuteronomy.  Modern  criticism  has  shown  that 
the  book  of  Joshua  originally  was  an  essential  member 
of  the  group  and  therefore  criticism  has  to  deal  with  the 
Hexateuch. 

The  Higher  Criticism  is  named  Higher  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  Lower  Criticism.  The  Lower  Criticism 
deals  with  the  Text  of  the  Scriptures.  It  searches  all 
the  versions  and  manuscripts  and  citations  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  genuine  original  Text  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  its  authors  and  editors.  It  has  to  do  with  let- 
ters, words,  and  sentences,  as  such,  without  regard  to 
their  literary  form  or  meaning.  The  Higher  Criticism 
builds  on  the  Lower  Criticism  as  its  foundation.    It  takes 


2  TJIE   IIEXATEUCH 

the  Text  of  Scripture  from  the  hands  of  Lower  Criticism 
and  studies  it  as  literature.  This  distinction  between 
the  Higher  and  the  Lower  Criticism  was  not  made  by 
BibHcal  scholars,  but  by  classical  scholars  in  their  studies 
of  the  great  monuments  of  Greek  and  Roman  literature. 
So  soon  as  Biblical  scholars  began  to  study  the  Holy 
Scripture  with  scientific  methods,  they  adopted  this 
terminology  with  its  distinctive  meanings. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  four  different  lines  of  in- 
quiry. 

(i).  Integrity.  Is  the  writing  the  product  of  one  mind 
as  an  organic  whole,  or  composed  of  several  pieces  of  the 
same  author  ;  or  is  it  a  collection  of  wM'itings  by  different 
authors?  Has  it  retained  its  original  integrity  or  has  it 
been  interpolated?  May  the  interpolations  be  discrim- 
inated from  the  original  ?  The  Pentateuch  is  ascribed 
by  the  prevalent  tradition  to  Moses,  and  the  book  of 
Joshua  to  Joshua.  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch  traces  this  tradition  to  its  sources,  examines  the 
references  to  the  Hexateuch  in  other  writings,  and  then 
searches  the  Hexateuch  itself,  in  order  to  learn  whether 
this  tradition  corresponds  with  the  facts  of  the  case  or 
not.  It  finds  that  the  tradition  has  no  sound  historical 
basis,  that  the  references  to  the  Hexateuch  in  other  writ- 
ings and  the  testimony  of  the  Hexateuch  itself  tell  a 
different  story,  and  show  conclusively  that  the  Hexateuch 
embraces  Mosaic  originals,  several  different  codes  and 
historical  documents  and  the  handiwork  of  a  number  of 
editors  at  different  epochs  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and 
that  the  unity  of  the  Hexateuch  is  the  result  of  a  final 
redaction  of  all  the  earlier  elements. 

(2).  Authenticity.  Is  the  author's  name  given  in  con- 
nection with  the  writing?  Is  it  anonymous?  Can  it  be 
pseudonymous?      Is   it    a   compilation?      The    Higher 


THE  PROBLEM  3 

Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  finds  that  the  Hexateuch  is 
anonymous  and  that  it  is  a  compilation. 

(3).  Literary  Form.  Is  the  writing  poetry  or  prose? 
Is  the  prose  historic,  didactic,  rhetorical,  or  statistical? 
Is  the  poetry  lyric,  dramatic,  epic,  pastoral,  or  compos- 
ite ?  What  is  the  style  of  the  author  and  what  are  his 
distinctive  characteristics  in  form,  method,  and  color  ? 
The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  finds  four  great 
historical  narratives,  of  different  styles  and  methods  of 
historical  composition.  It  finds  a  large  number  of 
ancient  poems  embedded  in  the  narratives,  so  many 
indeed  as  to  make  a  collection  nearly  as  large  as  the 
Psalter,  if  they  were  gathered  together  in  a  separate 
book.  It  finds  several  law  codes,  differing  in  method 
of  codification  and  style  as  well  as  in  bulk  and  con- 
tents. 

(4).  Credibility,  Is  the  writing  reliable?  Do  its  state- 
ments accord  with  the  truth,  or  are  they  colored  and 
warped  by  prejudice,  superstition,  or  reliance  upon  in- 
sufficient or  unworthy  testimony  ?  What  character  does 
the  author  bear  as  to  prudence,  good  judgment,  fairness, 
integrity,  and  critical  sagacity?  The  Higher  Criticism 
of  the  Hexateuch  vindicates  its  credibility.  It  strength- 
ens the  historical  credibility  (1)  by  showing  that  w^e  have 
four  parallel  narratives  instead  of  the  single  narrative  of 
the  traditional  theory;  and  (2)  by  tracing  these  narratives 
to  their  sources  in  the  more  ancient  documents  buried 
in  them.  It  traces  the  development  of  the  original 
Mosaic  legislation  in  its  successive  stages  of  codification 
in  accordance  with  the  historical  development  of  the 
kingdom  of  God.  It  finds  minor  discrepancies  and  in- 
accuracies such  as  are  familiar  to  students  of  the  Gospels  ; 
but  these  increase  the  historic  credibility  of  the  writings, 
as  they  show  that  the  waiters  and  compilers  were  true  to 


4.  THE   IIEXATKUCII 

their  sources  of  information  even  when  they  could  not 
harmonize  them  in  all  respects. 

The  Higher  Criticism  has  several  lines  of  evidence 
upon  which  it  relies  for  its  conclusions. 

(i).  The  writing  must  be  in  accordance  with  its  sup- 
posed historical  position  as  to  time  and  place  and  cir- 
cumstances. 

(2).  Differences  of  style  imply  differences  of  experience 
and  age  of  the  same  author,  or,  when  sufficiently  great, 
differences  of  author  and  of  period  of  composition. 

(3).  Differences  of  opinion  and  conception  imply  differ- 
ences of  author  when  these  are  sufficiently  great,  and  also 
differences  of  period  of  composition. 

(4).  Citations  show  the  dependence  of  the  author  upon 
the  author  or  authors  cited. 

(5).  Positive  testimony  as  to  the  writing  in  other  writ- 
ings of  acknowledged  authority  is  the  strongest  evi- 
dence. 

(6).  The  argument  from  silence  is  often  of  great  value. 
If  the  matter  in  question  was  beyond  the  scope  of  the 
author's  argument,  it  either  had  certain  characteristics 
which  excluded  it,  or  it  had  no  manner  of  relation  to  the 
argument. 

If  the  matter  in  question  was  fairly  within  the  scope 
of  the  author's  argument,  he  either  omitted  it  for  good 
and  sufficient  reasons,  or  else  he  was  unconscious  or 
ignorant  of  it,  or  else  it  had  not  come  into  exist- 
ence.^'* 

These  lines  of  evidence  are  used  in  the  Higher  Criti- 
cism of  all  kinds  of  literature.  They  were  tested  and 
verified  in  the  study  of  Greek  and  Roman  literature,  and 
of  the  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  Church,  long  before 


^S^e  Biblical  study,  pp.  87-9T. 


THE  PROBLEM  5 

any  Biblical  scholar  used   them   in   his  studies  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

Our  problem  Is  the  HigherCriticism  of  the  Hexatcuch. 
We  shall  first  consider  the  evidences  from  Holy  Scrip- 
ture, then  test  the  traditional  theory,  and  finally  trace 
the  history  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch, 
and  use  the  six  lines  of  evidence  for  the  solution  of  the 
four  great  questions,  as  to  the  Integrity,  the  Authentic- 
ity, the  Literary  Forms  and  the  Credibility  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch. 


II. 


THE   TESTIMONY   OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE. 

I. —  TJie  Testimony  of  tJie  HexatencJi. 

We  shall  consider  first  those  passages  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  which  give  evidence  as  to  authorship. 

(i).  "And  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the  words  of 
Yahweh,  and  all  the  judgments  :  and  all  the  people  answered 
with  one  voice  and  said,  All  the  words  which  Yahweh  hath 
spoken  will  we  do.  And  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Yahweh, 
and  rose  up  early  in  the  morning,  and  builded  an  altar  under  the 
mount,  and  twelve  pillars,  according  to  the  twelve  tribes  of  Is- 
rael ....  And  he  took  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in 
the  audience  of  the  people  :  and  they  said,  All  that  Yahweh  hath 
spoken  will  we  do,  and  be  obedient."     (Ex.  xxiv.  3,  4,  7.) 

This  passage  speaks  of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in 
which  Moses  wrote  all  the  words  of  Yahweh.  These 
words  of  Yahweh  were  evidently  those  which  Yahweh 
said  unto  Moses  at  Horeb,  and  which  are  given  in  Ex, 
XX.  22-26,  and  probably  also  the  judgments  of  chapters 
xxi.-xxiii.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  editor 
of  the  Hexatcuch  designed  to  give  the  essential  contents 
of  the  Book  of  the  Covenant  in  that  series  of  pentades 
and  decalogues  which  seem  to  have  been  the  original 
contents  of  this  code  of  the  Ephraimitic  writer.  A 
critical  study  of  this  code  shows  that  there  have  been 
(6) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  7 

omissions,  insertions,  transpositions,  and  revisions  ;  but 
the  substance  of  this  original  code  of  the  twelve  deca- 
logues is  there."^ 

This  passage  proves  that  Moses  wrote  a  Book  of 
the  Covenant  ;  but  it  does  not  prove  that  he  wrote  the 
Pentateuch,  of  which  this  Book  in  its  present  form  takes 
less  than  four  chapters. 

(2).  "  And  Yahweh  said  unto  Moses,  Write  thou  these  words  : 
for  after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  made  a  covenant  with 
thee  and  with  Israel."    (Ex.  xxxiv.  27.) 

These  words  written  at  this  time  by  Moses  refer  with- 
out doubt  to  the  words  which  precede,  that  is  the  deca- 
logue, which  may  be  called  the  Little  Book  of  the 
Covenant.  This  decalogue  of  the  Little  Book  of  the 
Covenant  is  parallel  for  the  most  part  with  one  of  the 
decalogues  of  the  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant.  The 
one  of  these  books  is  mentioned  by  the  Ephraimitic 
writer,  the  other  by  the  Judaic  waiter.  The  question 
thus  arises  whether  there  were  two  law  codes  in  two  dif- 
ferent books,  given  within  a  few  weeks  of  each  other,  or 
whether  these  are  two  different  codifications  of.  one  and 
the  same  Book  of  the  Covenant.  At  all  events,  this  pas- 
sage proves  no  more  than  that  Moses  wrote  the  deca- 
logue of  the  Little  Book  of  the  Covenant,  and  by  no 
means  implies  that  he  wTote  the  chapter  which  contains 
this  narrative,  still  less  the  entire  Pentateuch.f 

(3).  "  But  as  for  thee,  stand  thou  here  by  me,  and  I  will  speak 
unto  thee  all  the  commandment,  and  the  statutes,  and  the  judg- 
ments, which  thou  shalt  teach  them,  that  they  may  do  them  in 
the  land  which  I  give  them  to  possess  it."     (Dt.  v.  31.) 

This  passage  proves  no  more  than  that  Moses  spoke 
at  Mt.  Horeb,  commandments,  statutes  and  judgments. 

*  See  Appendix  VI .  t  See  Appendix  V. 


8 


THE   HEXATEUCH 


No  mention  is  made  of  committing  any  of  these  to 
writing.  It  is  probably  a  parallel  statement  to  Ex. 
xxiv.   12. 

(4).  "And  Moses  wrote  this  law,  and  delivered  it  unto  ihe 
priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of 
Yahvveh,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel."  .  .  .  .  "  Take  this 
book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant of  Yahweh  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for  a  witness 
against  thee."     (Dt.  xxxi.  9,  26.)   *a  '  -^A 

Verse  26  tells  us  what   precisely  it  was  which  Moses 
wrote,  namely,  the  book  of  the  Thorah,  the  book  of  in-    La---/ 
struction.     This  law  book,  as  all  modern  Biblical  schol-  ^.-^^"^^  ^ 
ars  recognize,  is  what  we  call  the   Deuteronomic  code. 
The  code  comprehends  the  laws  in  Deuteronomy  xii.- 
xxvi.     This  code  is  in  the  rhetorical  form  and  not  in  the 
form   of  decalogues  and  pentades  as  are  the  covenant 
codes.     The  question  then  arises  whether  this  rhetorical    co-^---^'"r^ 
form  belongs  to  the  original  code  or  whether  the   origi-  *^' 
nal   code   of  this  law  book  has    not   been  put   in   this 
rhetorical    form    by   the    Deuteronomist.^'      Whatever 
opinion  we  may  form  on  this  question,  it  is  evident  that 
the  most  that  you  can  prove  from  this  passage  is  that 
Moses  wrote  a  law  book  which  for  substance  is  given  in 
the  legal  chapters  of  Deuteronomy.     It  does  not  prove 
that  Moses  wrote  Deuteronomy,  still  less  that  he  wrote 
the  other  four  books  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(5).  "  Only  be  strong  and  very  courageous,  to  observe  to  do  ac- 
cording to  all  the  law,  which  Moses  my  servant  commanded 
thee  :  turn  not  from  it  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left,  that  thou 
mayest  have  good  success  whithersoever  thou  goest.  This  book 
of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth,  but  thou  shalt 
meditate  therein  day  and  night,  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do 
according  to  all  that  is  written  therein  :  for  then  thou  shalt  make 


See  p.  85  seq. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  () 

thy  way  prosperous,  and  then  thou  shalt  have  good  success." 
(Josh.  i.  7,  8.) 

"  As  Moses  the  servant  of  Yahweh  commanded  the  children  of 
Israel,  as  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  an  altar  of 
unhewn  stones,  upon  which  no  man  had  lifted  up  any  iron  :  and 
they  offered  thereon  burnt  offerings  unto  Yahweh,  and  sacrificed 
peace  offerings."     (Josh.  viii.  31.) 

These  passages  evidently  refer  to  the  law  book  al- 
ready mentioned  in  Deuteronomy.  They  confirm  the 
evidence  as  to  the  composition  of  that  law  book  by 
Moses,  but  they  do  not  give  any  additional  evidence. 
There  is  nothing  in  them  that  implies  that  Moses  wrote 
anything  else. 

From  all  these  passages  it  is  plain  that  Moses  wrote 
one  or  more  codes  of  law,  but  they  give  no  evidence 
that  Moses  wrote  all  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch  con- 
tained in  the  other  codes,  and  those  which  are  embedded 
in  the  historical  narratives. 

(6).  "  So  Moses  wrote  this  song  the  same  day,  and  taught  it 
the  children  of  Israel."     (Deut.  xxxi.  22.) 

The  song  referred  to  is  given  in  Deut.  xxxii.  and  it  is 
one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  poetry  in  the  Old  Testament, 
called  by  Schultz  the  Magna  Charta  of  prophecy. 
Whether  the  song  in  its  present  form  came  from  the 
pen  of  Moses  is  doubted  by  many  evangelical  scholars ; 
but,  whether  it  did  or  not,  the  most  we  can  prove  from 
this  passage  is  that  Moses  wrote  a  song  which  the  com- 
piler of  the  Hexateuch  proposes  to  give  in  Deuteronomy 
xxxii.,  in  the  form  in  which  he  knew  of  it. 

(7).  "And  Moses  wrote  their  goings  out  accordmg  to  their 
journeys  by  the  commandment  of  Yahweh  :  and  these  are  their 
journeys  according  to  their  goings  out."     (Num.  xxxiii.  2.) 

This  passage  definitely  states  what  it  was  that  Moses 


IQ  THE   IlEXATEUCII 

wrote,  namely,  the  list  of  stations  of  the  journeys  of 
Israel  from  Egypt  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan.  It  re- 
quires one  to  spring  over  too  wide  a  stretch  of  reasoning 
to  conclude  from  this  list  of  journeys  contained  in  a 
single  chapter  that  Moses  wrote  the  entire  Pentateuch. 

(8).  "  And  Yahvvch  said  unto  Moses,  Write  this  for  a  memorial 
in  a  book,  and  rehearse  it  in  the  ecrs  of  Joshua :  that  I  will  ut- 
terly blot  out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  from  under  heaven." 
(Ex.  xvii.  14.) 

Here  it  is  distinctly  stated  what  Moses  was  to  write, 
namely,  the  words,  "  I  will  utterly  blot  out  the  remem- 
brance of  Amalek  from  under  heaven."  The  Revised 
Version  correctly  renders  "  in  a  book  "  taking  the  Mas- 
soretic  pointing  as  giving  the  generic  article  in  accord- 
ance with  usage  elsewhere  (cf.  Job  xix.  23).  But  the 
American  revisers  insisted  on  giving  the  article  a  definite 
force  "  in  the  book"  in  order  to  support  the  theory  that 
Moses  kept  a  journal  in  which  he  wrote  down  from  time 
to  time  the  events  recorded  in  the  Pentateuch.  This 
crude  conceit  as  to  the  method  of  the  composition  of 
the  Pentateuch  may  now  be  regarded  as  antiquated. 

The  passages  usually  cited  from  the  Pentateuch  to 
prove  its  Mosaic  authorship  have  been  examined.  Such 
statements  in  any  other  historical  wTiting  would  imply 
that  the  author  or  compiler  was  referring  to  some  of  the 
written  sources  from  which  he  derived  the  materials  for 
his  own  work.  When  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  says 
that  Moses  wrote  one  or  more  codes  of  law,  that  he 
wrote  a  song,  that  he  recorded  a  certain  memorandum, 
it  would  appear  that  having  specified  such  of  his  mate- 
rials as  were  written  by  Moses,  he  would  have  us  infer 
that  the  other  materials  came  from  other  sources  of  infor- 
mation.    But  it  has  been  argued  the  other  way,  namely, 


THE  TESTLMONi:  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  n 

that,  because  it  is  said  Moses  wrote  the  codes  of  the  cove- 
nant and  the  Deuteronomic  code,  he  also  wrote  all  the 
laws  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  that  because  he  wrote  the  song 
Deut.  xxxii.,  he  wrote  all  the  other  pieces  of  poetry  in 
the  Pentateuch;  that  because  he  recorded  the  list  of 
stations  and  the  memorial  against  Amalek,  he  recorded 
all  the  other  historical  events  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is 
probable  that  no  one  would  so  argue  did  he  not  suppose 
it  was  necessary  to  maintain  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch  at  every  cost.  All  that  the  Pentateuch 
says  as  to  Mosaic  authorship  we  may  accept  as  valid  and 
true ;  but  we  cannot  be  asked  to  accept  such  a  compre- 
hensive inference  as  that  Moses  wrote  the  whole  Penta- 
teuch from  the  simple  statements  of  the  Pentateuch  that 
he  wrote  out  the  few  things  distinctly  specified. 

We  shall  now  consider  some  passages  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  which  tell  a  different  story. 

(9).  In  Josh.  xxiv.  26,  it  is  said  that  Joshua  wrote  the 
words  of  his  last  discourse  in  the  book  of  the  instruction 
or  law  of  God.  The  name  of  this  book  differs  from  the 
name  of  the  book  containing  the  Deuteronomic  code 
only  by  the  substitution  of  Elohim,  God,  for  Yahweh. 
This  statement  in  the  Ephraimitic  writer  seems  to  imply 
that  there  was  an  official  divine  law  book  to  which 
Joshua  made  this  addition.  But  what  has  become  of  it? 
If  it  was  the  same  book  as  the  Deuteronomic  code, 
why  are  not  these  words  in  that  code  at  the  present 
time  ?  Is  not  the  view  more  reasonable  on  the  basis  of 
this  passage,  that  this  old  law  book  was  used  for  the 
most  part  by  the  Deuteronomist  in  the  book  of  Deuter- 
onomy, but  by  the  Ephraimitic  writer  in  the  passage 
Josh.  xxiv.  26,  and  that  the  compiler  of  the  present 
Hexateuch  has  given  us  both  extracts  from  this  same 
original  law   book  in  the  words  of  these   two  different 


12  THE  HEXATEUCII 

authors?  Will  any  now  ari^uc  from  the  statement,  that 
Joshua  wrote  his  last  discourse  in  this  law  book,  that 
Joshua  wrote  the  whole  of  the  book  which  bears  his 
name  ?  It  used  to  be  so  argued.  The  day  is  not  distant 
when  we  shall  say  "  it  used  to  be  so  "  for  the  argument 
for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

(lo).  In  Num.  xxi.  14,  a  piece  of  poetry  is  cited  from 
the  Book  of  the  Wars  of  Yahweh.  This  book,  which,  like 
Joshua's  law  book,  is  no  longer  in  existence,  was  prob- 
ably an  anthology  of  national  Hebrew  poetry.  Its  ether 
contents  are  unknown.  Possibly  some  of  them  are  to  be 
found  among  the  other  poetic  extracts  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch.  It  is  not  said  who  was  the  author  or  compiler  of 
this  book.  Is  there  any  reason  to  think  of  Moses?  Or 
shall  we  not  rather  conclude,  in  accordance  with  the 
methods  of  reasoning  of  the  anti-critics,  that  because 
this  piece  of  poetry  was  taken  from  the  Book  of  the 
Wars  of  Yahweh  the  whole  Pentateuch  was  taken  from 
that  book,  and  was  written  by  its  author? 

(11).  In  Josh.  X.  12,  13,  a  strophe  is  cited  from  the 
book  of  Jasher,  describing  the  theophany  at  the  battle 
of  Beth-Horon. 

"  Sun,  stand  thou  still  upon  Gibeon  ; 
And  thou,  moon,  in  the  valley  of  Aijalon, 
And  the  sun  stood  still,  and  the  moon  stayed, 
Until  the  nation  had  avenged  themselves  of  their  enemies." 

This  book  seems  to  have  been  another  collection  of 
poetry.  Two  other  extracts  from  this  book  are  given 
in  the  Old  Testament.  The  one,  2  Sam.  i.  t8,  is  the 
lament  of  David  over  Jonathan  and  Saul,  a  dirge  of  won- 
derful beauty  and  power;  the  other  is  a  little  piece  of 
four  lines  in  i  Kings  viii.  12,  13,  which,  according  to  the 
LXX.  was  also  taken  from  the  book  of  Jasher,  although 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  13 

this  reference  to  the  book  of  Jasher,  and  one  Hnc  of  the 
poem,  is  missing  from  the  Massorctic  text. 

"The  sun  is  known  in  the  heavens, 
But  Yahvveh  said  he  would  dwell  in  thick  darkness. 
I  have  built  up  a  house  of  habitation  for  thee  ; 
A  place  for  thee  to  dwell  in  forever." 

This  passage  is  cited  in  the  words  of  Solomon  at  the 
dedication  of  the  temple.  If  now  the  book  of  Jasher 
contains,  besides  the  ode  of  the  battle  of  Beth-Horon  of 
the  time  of  Joshua,  a  dirge  of  David,  and  a  piece  of 
poetry  of  Solomon,  that  book  could  not  be  earlier  than 
the  dedication  of  the  temple  of  Solomon.  The  compiler 
who  cites  from  that  book  could  not  have  compiled  the 
book  of  Joshua  before  the  book  from  which  he  cites  was 
written.  Therefore,  the  book  of  Joshua  could  not  have 
been  compiled  in  its  present  form  before  the  dedication 
of  the  temple.  If  now  the  book  of  Joshua  is  insepara- 
ble from  the  Pentateuch  and  makes  with  it  a  Hexateuch, 
and  if  the  four  documents  from  the  Pentateuch  run 
right  on  through  the  book  of  Joshua,  then  it  is  evident 
that  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been  compiled  by 
Moses,  but  must  have  been  compiled  subsequent  to  the 
dedication  of  the  temple  of  Solomon.  But  this  connec- 
tion of  Joshua  with  the  Pentateuch  can  be  established 
by  indubitable  evidence  from  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
book  of  Joshua,*  therefore  it  is  the  evidence  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch itself  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch. 

11. —  The    Testimony  of  the  Prophets. 

We  are  surprised  by  a  lack  of  reference  to  the  Mosaic 
law  in  the  prophets  of  Israel,  The  most  important  pas- 
sage in  the  discussion  is  Hos.  viii.  12.     This  is  rendered 

*  See  pp.  61,  68,  70  seq. 


14  THE  HEXATEUCH 

by  the  Revised  Version  correctly  :  "  Though  I  write 
for  him  my  law  in  ten  thousand  precepts,  they  are 
counted  as  a  strange  thing."  The  American  revisers 
would  translate,  "  I  wrote  for  him  the  ten  thousand 
things  of  my  law."  The  American  revisers  wish  to  hold 
to  the  traditional  interpretation  of  this  passage,  that  it 
refers  to  the  ten  thousand  precepts  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch.  This  would  imply  a  very  extensive  body 
of  law  or  doctrine  written  in  or  before  the  time  of  Hosea, 
and  here  referred  to  by  him.  But  unfortunately  for  the 
American  revisers,  the  tense  of  the  verb  is  against  them. 
It  is  the  Hebrew  imperfect  tense.  It  is  incorrect  to 
render  that  tense  as  an  aorist  referring  it  to  the  Mosaic 
legislation.  It  is  possible  to  render  it  as  a  frequentative. 
But  this  would  refer  it  to  a  series  of  divine  laws  reaching 
up  to  the  prophet's  time,  and  that  would  not  suit  their 
purpose.  The  English  revisers  give  the  translation  which 
is  best  suited  to  the  Hebrew  tense  and  the  context  of 
the  passage,  in  rendering  it  as  hypothetical.  In  this  case 
there  is  no  more  than  a  general  reference  to  the  fact  that 
divine  laws  were  recorded,  and  that  if  such  laws  were 
given  to  an  indefinite  extent  so  as  to  run  up  to  myriads 
of  laws,  they  would  only  multiply  the  transgressions  of 
a  rebellious  people.  The  laws  were  really  prophetic  in- 
structions, including  those  of  Hosea  himself.  That  this 
is  the  true  interpretation,  we  see  from  the  usage  of  other 
prophets.  Jeremiah  viii.  8  refers  to  a  law  of  Yahweh 
as  coming  through  false  prophets.  Thorah  is  indeed 
divine  instruction  or  doctrine,  rather  than  divine  law, 
and  hence  in  the  usage  of  the  Old  Testament  it  refers  to 
any  divine  instruction,  any  teaching  from  God.  It  was 
not  until  the  reign  of  rabbinical  tradition  that  the  law 
became  a  technical  term  for  the  Pentateuch.  As  De- 
litzsch   says:     ''The   recognition  of  this   fact  opens  the 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


15 


eyes  and  delivers  from  the  bondage  of  prejudice."  The 
older  scholars  were  blinded  by  the  technical  usage  of 
rabbinical  theology  to  the  historic  usage  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture ;  and  unfortunately  the  same  veil  lieth  upon  the 
heart  of  some  modern  scholars  whensoever  Moses  is 
read. 

III. —  The  Lazv  Book  of  Josiah. 

The  most  important  passages  in  the  Old  Testament  in 
evidence  for  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  are  2 
Kings  xxii.  8,  ii  ;  xxiii.  2,  2i,  25  ;  and  their  parallels  2 
Chron.  xxxiv.  14,  15,  19,  30,  xxxv.  3,  6. 


II.  Kings  xxii.-xxiii. 
"  And  Hilkiah  the  high  priest 
said  unto  Shaphan  the  scribe, 
I  have  found  the  book  of  the 
law  in  the  house  of  Yahvveh. 
And  Hilkiah  deUvered  the  book 
to  Shaphan,  and  he  read  it." 
(xxii.  8.) 


"  And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
the  king  had  heard  the  words 
of  the  book  of  the  law,  that  he 
rent  his  clothes."     (ver.  11.) 


"And  the  king  went  up  to 
the  house  of  Yahweh,  and  all 
the  men  of  Judah  and  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  with 
him,  and  the  priests,  and  the 
prophets,  and  all  the  people, 
both  small  and  great :  and  he 


II.  Chronicles  xxxiv.-v. 

"And  when  they  brought  out 
the  money  that  was  brought 
into  the  house  of  Yahweh, 
Hilkiah  the  priest  found  the 
book  of  the  law  of  Yahweh 
given  by  Moses.  And  Hilkiah 
answered  and  said  to  Shaphan 
the  scribe,  I  have  found  the 
book  of  the  law  in  the  house  of 
Yahweh.  And  Hilkiah  deliv- 
ered the  book  to  Shaphan." 
(ver.  14,  15.) 

"And  it  came  to  pass,  when 
the  king  had  heard  the  words 
of  the  law,  that  he  rent  his 
clothes."     (ver.  19.) 


"And  the  king  went  up  to 
the  house  of  Yahweh,  and  all 
the  men  of  Judah  and  the  in- 
habitants of  Jerusalem,  and  the 
priests,  and  the  Levites,  and  all 
the  people,  both  great  and 
small :  and  he  read  in  their  ears 


16 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


all  the  words  of  the  book  of  the 
covenant  that  was  found  in  the 
house  of  Yahweh."     (ver.  30.) 


"And  he  said  unto  the  Le- 
vites  that  taught  all  Israel, 
.  .  .  .  kill  the  passdver,  and 
sanctify  yourselves,  and  prepare 
for  your  brethren,  to  do  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  Yahweh  by 
the  hand  of  Moses."  (xxxv.  3, 6.) 


read  in  their  ears  all  the  words 
of  the  book  of  the  covenant 
which  was  found  in  the  house 
of  Yahweh."     (xxiii.  2.) 

"And  the  king  commanded 
all  the  people,  saying,  Keep  the 
passover  unto  Yahweh  your 
God,  as  it  is  written  in  this 
book  of  the  covenant."  (ver.  21.) 

"And  like  unto  him  was  there 
no  king  before  him,  that  turned 
to  Yahweh  with  all  his  heart, 
and  with  all  his  soul,  and  with 
all  his  might,  according  to  all 
the  law  of  Moses  ;  neither  after 
him  arose  there  any  like  him." 
(ver.  25.) 

Critical  scholars  are  agreed  that  this  law  book  was  the 
Deuteronomic  code.  The  older  view  was  that  it  was  the 
entire  Pentateuch.  There  are  a  few  anti-critics  who 
adhere  to  this  traditional  theory  as  they  do  to  all  others. 
It  is  sufficient  to  cite  the  careful  statement  of  the  Hul- 
sean  professor  of  divinity  at  Cambridge,  England,  Her- 
bert E.  Ryle : 

"When  we  enquire  what  this  'Book  of  the  Law'  comprised, 
the  evidence  at  our  disposal  is  quite  sufficiently  explicit  to  direct 
us  to  a  reply.  Even  apart  from  the  knowledge  which  we  now 
possess  of  the  structure  of  the  Pentateuch,  there  was  never 
much  probability  in  the  supposition,  that  the  book  discovered  by 
Hilkiah  was  identical  with  the  whole  Jewish  *  Torah,'  our  Penta- 
V  teuch.  The  narrative  does  not  suggest  so  considerable  a  work, 
^t-l-H-lis^Its  contents  were  qujckly  perused  and  readily  grasped.  Being 
read  aloiiH,  it  at  once  left  distinct  impressions  upon  ques- 
tions of  national  duty.  Its  dimensions  could  not  have  been  very 
large,  nor  its  precepts  very  technical.     The  complex  character 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  ^7 

of  the  Pentateuch  fails  to  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the  picture. 
Perhaps,  too  (although  the  argument  is  hardly  one  to  be  pressed), 
as  it  appears  that  only  a  single  roll  of  the  Law  was  found,  it  may 
not  unfairly  be  remarked,  that  the  whole  Torah  was  never  likely 
to  be  contained  in  one  roll ;  but  that,  if  a  single  roll  contained 
any  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  was  most  probably  the  Deu- 
teronomic  portion  of  it;  for  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy,  of  all 
the  component  elements  of  the  Pentateuch,  presents  the  most 
unmistakable  appearance  of  having  once  formed  a  compact  in- 
dependent work. 

"But, there  is  no  need  to  have  recourse  to  arguments  of  such 
a  doubtful  kind.  For  while  the  evidence  shows  that  a  completed 
Torah  could  not  have  existed  at  this  time,  we  seem  to  have 
convincing  proof  that  'the  Book  of  the  Law'  was  either  a  por- 
tion of  our  Deuteronomy  or  a  collection  of  laws,  Deuteronomic 
in  tone,  and,  in  range  of  contents,  having  a  close  resemblance  to 
our  Book  of  Deuteronomy.  The  evidence  is  twofold,  (i).  The 
description  which  is  given  of  the  book  found  in  the  Temple 
shows,  that,  in  its  most  characteristic  features,  it  approximated 
more  closely  to  portions  of  Deuteronomy  than  to  any  other 
section  of  the  Pentateuch.  (2).  The  historian,  from  whom  we 
obtain  the  account,  appears,  when  he  speaks  of  'the  law,'  to  have 
in  view  the  Deuteronomic  section,  and  scarcely  to  be  acquainted 
with  any  other.  These  arguments  have  been  frequently  and 
fully  discussed  in  other  works,  so  that  we  need  not  here  do  more 
than  summarize  them  very  briefly. 

"  (i).  The  description  of  the  book  shows  that,  in  its  most  con- 
spicuous features,  it  was  in  close  agreement  with  the  contents  of 
Deuteronomy. 

"  (a).  The  book  contained  denunciations  against  the  neglect  of 
the  covenant  with  Jehovah.    (2  Kings  xxii.  11-13,  16,  17). 

"  Now  the  Pentateuch  contains  two  extensive  passages  describ- 
ing the  fearful  visitations  that  should  befall  the  people  of  Israel 
for  following  after  other  gods  (Lev.  xxvi.  ;  Deut.  xxviii.-xxxi.). 
Of  these,  the  passage  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  longest,  and  while 
the  passage  in  Leviticus  would  be  calculated  to  produce  a  very 
similar  impression,  it  may  be  noticed  that  the  words  of  Huldah, 
in  referring  to  the  curses  contained  in  the  '  Book  of  the  Law,' 
possibly  contain  a  reference  to  Deut.  xxviii.  37,  xxix.  24  (cf,  2 
Kings  xxii.   19).     It  cannot  be  doubted   that  one  or  other,  or 


13  THE  IIEXATEUCH 

both  of  these  denunciations,  must  have  been  included  in  Josiah's 
'  Book  of  the  Law.' 

"  {d).  The  reforms  carried  out  by  the  king  and  his  advisers,  in 
order  to  obey  the  commands  of  'the  Book  of  Law,' deal  with 
matters  all  of  which  are  mentioned,  with  more  or  less  emphasis, 
in  the  Deuteronomic  legislation,  (i.)  The  principal  religious 
reform  carried  out  by  Josiah  was  the  suppression  of  the  worship 
at  the  high  places,  and  the  concentration  of  worship  at  the 
Temple.  No  point  is  insisted  on  so  frequently  and  so  em- 
phatically in  the  Deuteronomic  laws  as  that  all  public  worship  is 
to  be  centralised  at  the  one  place  which  Jehovah  himself  should 
choose  (Deut.  xii.  5  and  passini).  (ii.)  Josiah  took  measures  to 
abolish  the  worship  of  the  heavenly  bodies,  a  form  of  idolatry 
distinct  from  the  worship  of  Baal  and  Ashtoreth.  His  action  is  in 
obedience  to  the  commands  of  Deuteronomic  laws  (Deut.  iv.  19, 
xvii.  3).  There  alone  in  the  Pentateuch  this  particular  form 
of  idolatry  is  combated.  For,  although  it  had  existed  in  an 
earlier  time,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  infected  the  religion  of 
Israel  until  late  in  the  monarchical  period  (cf.  2  Kings  xxi.  3,  5, 
xxiii.  4,  5,  II,  12).  (iii.)  Josiah  celebrated  the  Feast  of  the  Pass- 
over (2  Kings  xxiii.  21-23)  i"  accordance  with  'the  Book  of  the 
Law': — we  find  the  Law  of  the  Passover  laid  down  in  Deut.  xvi. 
1-8.  (iv.)  Josiah  expelled  the  wizards  and  diviners  from  the 
iand  in  express  fulfilment  of  'the  Book  of  Law'  (2  Kings  xxiii. 
24):  we  find  the  prohibition  of  this  common  class  of  impostor  in 
Oriental  countries  expressed  in  strong  language  in  Deut.  xviii. 
9-14. 

"  It  is  not,  of  course,  for  a  moment  denied  that  laws,  dealing 
with  these  last  two  subjects,  are  to  be  found  elsewhere  in  the 
Pentateuch.  But  as  in  all  four  cases  Josiah's  action  was  based 
upon  'the  law,'  whatever  'the  law'  was,  it  must  have  dealt  with 
'  feasts '  and  with  '  wizards '  as  well  as  with  '  concentration  of 
worship '  and  *  star-worship.'  In  the  Deuteronomic  laws  all  four 
points  are  touched  upon. 

"  {c).  The  book  found  in  the  Temple  is  designated  'the  Book 
of  the  Covenant'  (2  Kings  xxiii.  2,  21),  and  it  appears  that  it 
contained  a  covenant,  to  the  observance  of  which  the  king  sol- 
emnly pledged  himself  {id.  3).  In  the  Pentateuch  we  find,  it  is 
true,  a  mention  of  '  the  Book  of  the  Covenant '  (Ex.  xxiv.  7),  by 
which  the  substance  of  the  Sinaitic  legislation  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.) 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


19 


seems  to  be  denoted.  But  it  is  clear,  from  the  fact  that  the 
section,  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.,  contains  no  denunciation;  from  the  fact 
that  it  contains  only  the  very  briefest  notice  of  the  Feast  of  the 
Passover,  and  then  under  another  name  'the  Feast  of  Un- 
leavened Bread'  (Ex.  xxiii.  15) ;  from  the  fact  that  it  makes  no 
mention  of  either  wizards  or  star-worship  ; — that  this  portion  of 
the  Israelite  law  cann^t_be  '  the  covenant'  referred  to  in  2  Kings 
xxiii.  On  the  other  hand,  an  important  section  at  the  close  of 
our  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  occupied  with  a  '  Covenant ' ;  and 
it  can  hardly  be  doubted,  that  a  '  Book  of  the  Law,'  which  was 
also  *  the  Book  of  the  Covenant,'  must  have  included  such  pas- 
sages as  Deut.  xxix.  i,  'These  are  the  words  of  the  covenant 
which  the  Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of 
Israel ' ;  ver.  9,  '  Keep  therefore  the  words  of  this  covenant ' ;  ver. 
14,  'Neither  with  you  only  do  I  make  this  covenant  and  this 
oath  ';  ver.  21,  'According  to  all  the  curses  of  the  covenant  that 
is  written  in  the  book  of  the  law ' ;  vers.  24,  25,  '  Even  all  the 
nations  shall  say.  Wherefore  hath  the  Lord  done  thus  unto  this 
land  ?  .  .  .  .  Then  men  shall  say,  Because  they  forsook  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord.' 

"(2).  The  historian  who  has  preserved  to  us  the  narrative  of 
the  finding  of  '  the  Book  of  the  Law '  himself  quotes  directly 
from  '  the  law '  in  two  passages,  and  in  both  instances  from  Deu- 
teronomic  writing.  In  i  Kings  ii.  3,  '  And  keep  the  charge 
of  the  Lord  thy  God  to  walk  in  His  ways,  to  keep  His  statutes 
and  His  commandments  and  His  judgments  and  His  testi- 
monies, according  to  that  which  is  written  in  the  law  of  Moses, 
that  thou  mayest  prosper  in  all  that  thou  doest  and  whither- 
soever thou  turnest  thyself,'  the  words  used  are  characteristically 
Deuteronomic,  and  the  thought  is  possibly  based  on  Deut.  xvii. 
18-20  (cf.  Josh.  i.  8).  In  2  Kings  xiv.  6,  '  But  the  children  of  the 
murderers  he  put  not  to  death  ;  according  to  that  which  is  writ- 
ten in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses,  as  the  Lord  commanded, 
saying,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for  the  children,' 
the  citation  is  taken  almost  word  for  word  from  Deut.  xx^iv.  16. 
In  numerous  characteristic  expressions  and  phrases  the  compiler 
of  the  Books  of  Kings  shows  a  close  acquaintance  with  the  Deu- 
teronomic portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  though  nowhere,  perhaps, 
so  frequently  as  in  i  Kings  viii.,  ix,,  i\£:  viii.  51  (cf.  Deut.  iv. 
20),  ix.  3  (cf.  Deut.  xii.  5),  ix.  7,  8  (cf.  Deut.  xxviii.   37,  xxix.  24). 


20  THE   IIEXATEUCH 

Generally  speaking,  where  reference  is  made  to  '  the  law  '  in  the 
Books  of  Kings,  the  allusion  can  only  be  satisfied  by  a  reminis- 
cence of  a  Deuteronomic  passage.  Thus,  exclusive  of  the  two 
passages  already  quoted,  may  be  noted  i  Kings  viii.  9  (cf  Deut. 
X.  5,  xxix.  i),  53  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  20),  56  (cf.  Deut.  xii.  9,  10,  xxv.  19), 
2  Kings  x.  31,  xviii.  12,  xxi.  8,  xxii.  8,  xxiii.  25. 

"  If,  therefore,  the  compiler  of  the  Books  of  Kings  identi- 
fied *  the  law  of  Moses '  and  '  the  book  of  the  law '  with  Deu- 
teronomy, or,  at  least,  with  a  Deuteronomic  version  of  the  law, 
we  may  nearly  take  it  for  granted,  that,  in  his  narrative  of  the 
reign  ot  Josiah,  when  he  mentioned  '  the  Book  of  the  Law ' 
without  further  description,  he  must  have  had  in  his  mind  the 
same  Deuteronomic  writings  with  which  he  was  so  familiar." 
{C  1X710)1  of  the  Old  Tectamoit,  pp.  48-53.) 

This  long  extract  gives  the  critical  argument  com- 
pactly and  thoroughly,  and  in  the  course  of  it  gives 
the  true  meaning  of  the  several  passages  in  the  book  of 
Kings  bearing  on  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch, 
making  it  clear  that  these  give  no  proof  of  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

Jeremiah,  the  great  prophet  of  the  age  of  Josiah, 
makes  reference  to  this  law  of  Yahweh,  and  it  is  admitted 
that  he  is  full  of  the  spirit  and  ideas  of  the  book  of 
Deuteronomy.  But  he  shows  no  knowledge  of  those 
parts  of  the  Pentateuch  which  are  now  generally  attrib- 
uted to  a  priestly  writer,  and  presents  no  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  a  Pentateuch  in  his  day,  still  less  of  a 
Pentateuch  written  by  Moses. 

IV. —  The     Testimony   of   the    Exilic    and  Postexilic 
Literature. 

In  the  Psalter  the  only  sacred  writing  referred  to  is 
the  roll  of  the  book  concerning  the  king,  Ps.  xl.  8.    This        :f^^ 
doubtless  points  to  the  law  contained  in  Dt.  xyii.  14  sq., 
and   gives   evidence    of    a   knowledge  of    the  Deutero- 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  21 

nomic  code  by  the  writer  of  this  cxiHc  psahn.  ''Law" 
in  the  Psalter  is  for  the  most  part  used  in  psahns  of  a 
very  late  postexilic  date.      -:     ,  r 

We  have  thus  far  found  no  recognition  of  a  Mosaic 
Pentateuch  in  any  writing  prior  to  the  restoration  from 
exile.  We  have  found  nothing  more  than  the  Pentateuch 
itself  gives  us  in  the  passages  cited,  a  Mosaic  law  book 
of  limited  dimensions,  a  covenant  code  and  the  code  of 
Deuteronomy. 

I  shall  first  refer  to  a  passage  from  the  last  of  the 
prophets : 

"  Remember  ye  the  law  of  Moses  my  servant,  which  I  com- 
manded unto  him  in  Horeb  for  all  Israel,  even  statutes  and 
judgments."     (Malachi  iv,  4.) 

This  reference  to  the  law  of  Moses  coupled  as  it  is 
with  the  name  Horeb,  if  it  imply  a  written  law, 
refers  to  the  Deuteronomic  code  where  Horeb  is  used  for 
Sinai  of  the  priestly  document  of  the  Hexateuch.  It 
seems  probable  that  in  the  time  of  Malachi,  the  Deu- 
teronomic code  still  existed  as  a  separate  writing. 

The  Chronicler  is  a  late  writer,  not  earlier  than  the 
Greek  period,  some  considerable  time  subsequent  to  the 
reforms  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  when  it  is  admitted  that 
the  Pentateuch  existed  in  its  present  form.  What  then 
is  the  evidence  of  the  Chronicler  on  this  subject  ?  It  is 
evident  that  a  great  variety  of  phrases  is  used  for  law 
by  the  Chronicler.     We  shall  divide  them  into  groups. 

(a).  Words  of  the  Law.     Neh.  viii.  9,  13.      • 
Portions  of  the  Law.     Neh.  xii.  44. 
The  Law  of  Yahweh.     Ez.  vii.  10 ;   i  Chron.  xvi. 

40;  2  Chron.  xii.  i,  xxxi.  3,  4,  xxxv.  26. 
The  Law  of  God.     Neh.  x.  29,  30. 
The  Law  of  Yahweh  thy  God.      i  Chron.  xxii.  12. 


22  THE  HEXATEUCH 

Book  of  the  Law.     Neh.  viii.  3  ;  2  Chron.  xxxiv. 

15. 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Yahweh  their  God.     Neh. 

ix.  3. 
Book  of  the  Law  of  God.     Neh.  viii.  18. 
Book  of  the   Law  of  Yahweh.     2  Chron.  xvii.  9, 

xxxiv.  14. 
Written  in  the  Law.     Neh.  x.  34,  37. 
In  the  Book  in  the  Law  of  God.     Neh.  viii.  8. 

It  is  evident  that  Mosaic  authorship  cannot  be  proven 
from  these  phrases. 

{b).  In  the  Law  which  Yahweh  commanded   by  the 

hand  of  Moses.     Neh.  viii.  14.      ",v^  .  JU^-.x^.-.y/"" 

The  Word  that  thou  commandest  thy  servant 
Moses.     Neh.  i.  8. 

All  that  Moses  the  servant  of  God  had  com- 
manded.    I  Chron.  vi.  34. 

There  is  nothing  in  these  statements  which  is  not  con-  ^j'^-^^ 
tained   already  in  the  Pentateuch  itself  with   regard  to-./jv-*^^^!©^ 
the  matters  referred  to.     They  do  not  prove  the  Mosaic  ^^ 
authorship  of  the   Pentateuch,  but   only  the  connection 
of  Moses  with  certain  things  in  the  way  of  law  and  pre- 
diction recorded  in  the  Pentateuch. 

{c).  The  third  group  needs  more  careful  consideration  : 
Law  of  Moses.     2  Chron.  xxx.  16;  Ez.  vii.  6. 
Book  of  the  Law  of  Moses.     Neh.  viii.  i.  ■        ^ 

Written   in  the   Law  of  Moses.     2  Chron.  xxiii. 

18  :  Ez.  iii.  2  ;    Dan.  ix.  11,  13. 
Written  in  the  Book  of  Moses.     2   Chron.  xxxv. 

12;   Ez.  vi.  18. 
Written  in  the   Law   in   the  Book^  of    Moses.     2 

Chron.  xxv.  4. 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  23 

The  question  here  arises  whether  the  attachment  of 
the  name  of  Moses  to  this  law  book  impHes  Mosaic  au- 
thorship of  the  book  and  all  its  contents,  (i).  Is  it 
certain  that  it  refers  to  our  Pentateuch  ?  Delitzsch, 
who  has  resisted  the  progress  of  the  Higher  Criticism  as 
an  honest,  God-fearing  man,  and  who  has  yielded  only 
when  convinced  by  irresistible  arguments,  says  no.  In 
his  last  volume  on  Genesis,  he  says: 

"  Nowhere  in  the  canonical  literature  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament do  the  terms  '  the  law,'  '  the  book  of  the  law,' 
'  the  law  of  Moses,'  cover  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
form,  not  in  the  history  of  Joshua,  Jos.  i.  8,  or  Jehosh- 
aphat,  2  Chron.  xvii.  9,  not  altogether  even  in  the 
history  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  Neh.  viii.  ib.  "  * 

But  admitting  that  it  refers  to  the  priestly  document, 
or  to  the  whole  Pentateuch,  does  it  imply  Mosaic  author- 
ship in  all  respects?  We  urge  that  it  does  not  imply 
this.  If  the  Chronicler  had  known  the  historic  orig-in 
and  successive  stages  of  development  in  the  composition 
of  the  Hexateuch  as  we  know  them,  e.  £•,  that  we  have 
in  our  Hexateuch  a  Mosaic  code  written  by  Moses  in  a 
book  of  the  covenant  which  appears  in  one  form  in  Ex. 
xx.-xxiii.,  and  in  another  form  in  Ex.  xxxiv.,  and  in  a 
book  of  law  in  Dt.  xii.-xxvi.,  and  which  lies  at  the  basis 
of  the  code  of  Holiness  in  Leviticus  and  the  priest's  code 
in  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  that  these 
codes  existing  in  four  different  historic  writings  had 
been  compiled  in  the  more  comprehensive  codification 
of  our  Pentateuch  ;  would  he  not  have  been  justified  in 
speaking  of  the  Pentateuch  as  the  book  of  Moses,  the 
law  of  Moses,  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses  ?  So  it 
seems  to  some  who  have  carefully  considered  the  whole 

*  P.  13. 


24 


THE   IIEXATEUCH 


subject.     Others  may  think  differently,  but  have  they 
any  right  to  force  their  interpretation  upon  us?     The 
critics  base  their  opinion  upon  important  considerations. 
There  is    a   suiTicient    number  of  parallels    in   the  Old 
Testament.     Take  for  example  the  name  David  in  the 
titles  of  the  Davidic  psalms.     The  older  theory  was  that 
David  wrote  the  entire  Psalter,  then  the  theory  was  pro- 
posed that  David,  in  the  titles  of  the  psalms,  implied  the 
Davidic  authorship  of  those  particular  psalms.     But  this 
theory   has   to    be  abandoned    because  many    of  these 
psalms  which  bear  the  name  of  David   are  postexilic. 
It  seems  altogether  probable  that  these  psalms  were  all 
taken  from  the  earliest  of  the  minor  psalters,  which  were 
collected  under  the  name  of  David  because  David  was 
the  traditional  master  of  sacred  song.     The   Psalter  of 
David  in  this  ancient  collection  did  not  imply  that  David 
wrote  all  these  psalms,  but  that  his  was  an  appropriate 
name  under  which  to  compile  them.     The  same  is  true 
with  regard  to  that  ancient  collection  of  distichs  which 
bears  the  title  "  Proverbs  of  Solomon."   (Pr.  x.-xxii.  i6.) 
Who  can  believe  that  Solomon  was  the  author  of  them 
all?     He  was  the  master  of  sacred  wisdom  and  under  his 
name  it  was  appropriate  to  compile  a  collection  of  wis- 
dom.    Why  may  we  not  conclude  that  the  Chronicler, 
who   wrote   after   these   three   compilations   had   been 
made,  of  the  minor  psalter  of  David,  the  proverbs  of  Sol- 
om.on,  and  the  laws  of  Moses,  used  these  three  names  in 
exactly  the  same  way  ;  and  that  he  knew  that  no  one  of 
the  three  implied   authorship,  but  only  that  Moses  was 
the  father  of  the  law,  as  David  was  the  father  of  the 
psalmody,    and    Solomon    the    father   of   the   wisdom? 
Some  may  not  be  able  to  explain  these  things  as  we  do, 
but   if  they  do  not,  have  they   any  right  to  force   their 
interpretation     of   these     facts     upon    us?      All    these 


THE  TESTIMONY    OF   HOLY   SCRIPTURE  25 

phrases  refer  to  the  law.  But  wliat  about  the  history? 
If  the  book  is  called  the  law  of  Moses,  the  book  of  the 
law  of  Moses,  does  that  imply  that  all  the  history  in  the 
book  was  written  by  Moses?  Are  we  compelled  to  con- 
clude that  nothing  could  have  been  written  in  the  book 
except  what  came  from  Moses  or  was  compiled  by 
Moses?  Those  who  insist  upon  interpreting  such 
phrases  in  such  a  way  as  to  force  belief  in  the  Mosaic 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  when  they  are  capable  of 
another  interpretation  and  are  given  that  explanation  by 
Christian  scholars  of  the  highest  rank,  and  by  those  pre- 
eminent in  Biblical  learning,  should  beware  lest  they 
risk  the  canonicity  of  the  writings  of  the  Chronicler  by 
bringing  him  in  conflict  v/ith  the  mass  of  evidence  that 
may  be  presented  from  the  Pentateuch  itself  to  show 
that,  if  the  Chronicler  held  their  opinion,  he  was  alto- 
gether mistaken. 

V. —  The  Testimony  of  the  Nezv  Testament. 

The  evidence  from  the  New  Testament  may  be  dis- 
tributed in  five  sections  and  summed  up  as  follows: 

(i).  Jesus  speaks  of  the  law  of  Moses,  Luke  xxiv. 
44,  John  vii.  23  ;  and  the  book  of  Moses,  Mark  xii.  26. 
Moses  is  used  for  the  Pentateuch,  Acts  xv.  21  ;  2  Cor. 
iii.  15.     These  are  all  cases  of  naming  books  cited. 

These  passages  must  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with 
usage.  It  is  the  custom  in  literature  to  name  anonymous 
writings  after  the  name  of  the  chief  character  in  it,  or  the 
theme  of  it  ;  and  then  in  that  case  it  is  quite  common  to 
personify  the  book  and  represent  it  as  saying  or  teach- 
ing this  or  that.  When  Jesus  uses  Moses  as  another  name 
for  the  Law  or  Pentateuch,  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that 
Jesus  meant  to  say  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch. 
The  Book  of   Esther  is  named  Esther  not  because  any 


2(5  THE  HEXATEUCH 

one  ever  supposed  that  she  wrote  it ;  but  because  she  is 
the  heroine,  the  theme  of  the  book,  and  when  one  says,  as 
it  is  often  said,  "  Esther  never  uses  the  name  of  God, 
or  teaches  any  doctrine  of  faith,"  you  understand  him 
as  using  Esther  for  the  book  Esther. 

No  one  ever  supposed  that  Ruth  wrote  the  book  of 
Ruth,  or  would  suppose  that  she  was  regarded  as  its  author 
if  one  should  say,  as  it  has  often  been  said,'*  Ruth  teaches  a 
doctrine  different  from  Deuteronomy  and  Ezra  in  rep- 
resenting that  even  a  Moabitish  woman  may  enter  the 
kingdom  of  God."  The  usage  of  the  New  Testament  is 
also  sufficiently  clear  at  these  points.  Thus  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews  iv.  7  uses  David  as  a  name  of  the 
Psalter.  It  was  a  common  opinion  until  the  i8th  cen- 
tury that  David  wrote  all  the  psalms,  but  no  Biblical 
scholar  at  present,  so  far  as  is  known,  thinks  that  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  forces  him  to  hold  that  David  is 
the  author  of  the  entire  Psalter.  Why  then  should  any 
one  insist  that  when  the  name  Moses  is  given  to  the 
Pentateuch,  it  implies  that  Moses  wrote  all  the  writings 
attributed  to  him  by  tradition? 

(2).  Jesus  represents  Moses  as  a  law-giver,  giving  the 
Ss**r.  K  Ten  Commandments,  Markvii.  10;  the  law  of  the  lepers* 

offering,  Mark  i.  44,  etc.;  the  law  of  divorce,  Matt,  xix.^^*^/'^^ 
>.wk- ^^'^  7-8 ;  the  law  of  raising  up  seed  for  the  brother's  wife, 
Luke  XX.  28;  the  law  in  general,  John  vii.  19.  The 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews  represents  Moses  as  giving  the 
law  of  priesthood,  Heb.  vii.  14,  and  as  a  law-giver  whose 
;s>^^0  law  could  not  be  disobeyed  with  impunity,  Heb.  x.  28. 
These  passages  all  represent  Moses  to  be  the  law-giver 
that  he  appears  to  be  in  the  narratives  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, but  do  not,  by  any  means,  imply  the  authorship 
of  those  narratives  that  contain  these  laws,  any  more 
than  the  reference  in  i  Cor.  ix.  14,  to  the  command  of 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  27 

Christ  in  Luke  x.  7,  and  the  institution  of  the  Lord's 
supper  by  Jesus,  i  Cor.  xi.  23  scq.,  imply  that  Jesus  was 
the  author  of  the  gospels  containing  his  words. 

(3).  Jesus  represents  Moses  as  a  prophet  who  wrote 
of  him,  John  v.  46,  47,  so  Philip,  John  i.  45,  Peter,  Acts 
iii.  22-24,  Stephen,  Acts  vii.  37,  Paul,  Acts  xxvi.  22  ;  and 
?  i.tbfii^'^?*  in  Rom.  x.  5,  19,  the  apostle  refers  to  the  address  in 
'^  ^    Deut.  XXX.,  and  the  song,  Deut.  xxxii.     These  passages 

may  prove  that  certain  prophecies  came  from  Moses,  but 
do  not  prove  that  the  Pentateuch  as  a  whole,  or  the 
narratives  in  which  these  prophecies  occur,  were  written 
by  Moses. 

(4).  Certain  historical  events  narrated  in  the  Penta- 
teuch in  which  Moses  takes  the  lead  are  mentioned  in 
Luke  XX.  37;  Heb.  viii.  5;  ix.  19,  xii.  21,  etc.,  but 
these  simply  teach  the  historical  character  of  the  trans- 
actions, not  the  exclusive  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
writings  containing  these  historical  incidents.* 

(5).  In  Acts  iii.  24,  it  is  said,  "  All  the  prophets  from 
Samuel  and  them  that  followed  after,  as  many  as  have 
spoken,  they  also  told  of  those  days."  But  Samuel 
uttered  no  Messianic  prophecy  in  the  book  of  Samuel. 
The  name  Samuel  is  used  as  the  name  of  the  book,  and 
the  name  of  the  book  is  personified  and  represented  as 
speaking  the  prophecy  which  in  the  book  is  attributed 
to  the  prophet  Nathan.  If  now  Samuel  as  the  name  of 
the  book  may  be  represented  by  the  apostle  Peter  as 
speaking  the  prophecy  of  Nathan,  why  may  not  Moses 
as  the  name  of  the  book  of  Moses  be  represented  as 
giving  the  exhortations  of  an  unknown  prophet  con- 
tained in  the  book  which  bears  his  name?  It  is 
quite   true    that    an    ancient    Jewish    tradition    in   the 


*  See  Biblical  Study ^  pp.  192-193. 


23  THE    IIEXATFA'CH 

Talmud  represents  that  Samuel  wrote  his  book,  but  a 
later  writer  in  the  Talmud  itself  comments  on  the 
statement  that  Samuel  wrote  his  book  thus:  "'  But  it  is 
written  there :  and  Samuel  died,  and  they  buried  him 
in  Rama.'  Gad  the  seer  and  Nathan  the  prophet 
finished  it."  In  other  words,  the  book  was  begun  by 
Samuel  and  completed  by  Nathan  and  Gad.  It  may  be 
that  there  are  some  persons  at  the  present  time  who 
would  accept  this  Talmudic  comment  on  the  older 
Talmudic  tradition,  but  certainly  no  one  believes  that 
Samuel  recorded  Nathan's  prophecy  delivered  long  after 
Samuel's  death,  and  this  is  just  the  prophecy  that  Peter 
represents  Samuel  as  speaking. 

But  some  one  will  say,  "  Was  it  not  the  common 
opinion  in  the  days  of  our  Lord  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch?"  We  answer  that,  so  far  as  we  know,  it  was 
the  common  opinion  that  David  wrote  the  Psalter.  As 
to  the  Pentateuch,  opinion  was  divided  whether  it  was 
lost  when  the  temple  was  destroyed  by  the  king  of 
Babylon,  and  restored  or  recast  by  Ezra,  or  not.  If 
you  insist  upon  interpreting  the  New  Testament  by  the 
opinion  of  the  Jews  at  the  time  as  regards  the  Penta- 
teuch you  must  follow  it  also  as  regards  the  Psalter. 
But  why  should  we  interpret  Jesus  and  His  apostles  by 
the  opinions  of  the  Jews  of  His  time?  Why  should  we 
suppose  that  He  shared  with  them  all  the  errors  He  did 
not  oppose  and  refute?  Jesus  either  knew  that  Moses 
wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  He  did  not  know.  (a).  If  we 
should  say  Jesus  did  not  know  whether  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch  or  not,  we  would  not  go  beyond  His 
own  saying  that  He  knew  not  the  time  of  His  own 
advent.  Those  who  understand  the  doctrine  of  the 
humiliation  of  Christ  and  the  incarnation  of  Christ,  find 
no  more  difficulty  in  supposing  that  Jesus  did  not  know 


THE  TESTIMONY  OF   HOLY  SCRIPTURE  29 

the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  than  that  He  did  not 
know  the  day  of  His  own  advent.  As  Charles  Gore 
says: 

"When  he  speaks  of  the  'sun-rising'  He  is  using  ordinary 
language.  He  shows  no  signs  at  all  of  transcending  the  science 
of  His  age.  Equally  He  shows  no  signs  of  transcending  the 
History  of  His  age.  .  .  .  The  utterances  of  Christ  about  the  Old 
Testament  do  not  seem  to  be  nearly  definite  or  clear  enough  to 
allow  of  our  supposing  that  in  this  case  He  is  departing  from 
the  general  method  of  the  incarnation,  by  bringing  to  bear  the 
unveiled  omniscience  of  the  Godhead  to  anticipate  or  foreclose  a 
development  of  natural  knowledge."    {Lux  Mundi,  p.  360.) 

{b).  If  on  the  other  hand  any  one  should  say  Jesus 
must  have  known  all  things  and  He  ought  not  to  have 
used  language  that  might  deceive  men,  we  respond  that 
His  language  does  not  deceive  men.  Literary  usage  in 
all  ages  and  in  the  Bible  itself  shows  that  it  is  equally 
true  and  good  language  for  the  critics  as  for  the  anti- 
critics.  The  question  is,  shall  we  interpret  the  words  of 
Jesus  by  the  opinions  of  His  contemporaries?  This  we 
deny.  Jesus  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all  the  errors  of 
His  contemporaries.  He  did  not  correct  their  false 
views  of  science.  He  was  the  great  physician,  but  He 
did  not  teach  medicine.  He  was  greater  than  Solomon, 
and  yet  He  declined  to  decide  questions  of  civil  law 
and  politics.  He  never  rebuked  slavery.  Is  He  re- 
sponsible for  slavery  on  that  account?  The  Southern 
slaveholders  used  to  say  so.  But  even  they  are  now 
convinced  of  their  error.  The  signs  of  the  tim.es  indi- 
cate that  in  a  few  years  the  anti-critics  will  disap- 
pear as  completely  as  the  slaveholders.  The  attempt  to 
bar  the  way  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment by  interposing  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  an  unworthy  attempt  to   make  our  Lord  and 


30  THE  IlEXATEUCH 

His  apostles  responsible  for  those  conceits  and  follies  ot 
ancient  tradition  which  modern  traditional  dogma  has 
with  great  unwisdom  accepted  and  endorsed. 

We  have  gone  over  the  evidence  from  Holy  Scripture 
and  have  found  no  direct  testimony  sufficiently  explicit 
to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  But 
we  have  found  indirect  evidence  to  show  that  much  of 
the  Pentateuch  is  of  a  date  considerably  later  than 
Moses. 


III. 


THE  TRADITIONAL  THEORIES. 

We  shall  now  consider  the  evidence  from  Tradition, 
The  earliest  Rabbinical  theory  of  the  Old  Testament 
Literature  known  to  us  is  contained  in  the  Tract  Baba 
Bathra  of  the  Talmud.     The  Beraitha  reads  as  follows : 

"  Moses  wrote  his  book,  the  chapter  of  Balaam,  and  Job ; 
Joshua  wrote  his  book  and  the  eight  verses  of  the  Law  ;  *  Samuel 
wrote  his  book  and  Judges  and  Ruth  ;  David  wrote  the  book  of 
the  Psalms  with  the  aid  of  ten  ancients,  with  the  aid  of  Adam 
the  first,  Melchizedek,  Abraham,  Moses,  Heman,Jeduthun,  Asaph 
and  the  three  sons  of  Korah  ;  Jeremiah  wrote  his  book,  the  book 
of  Kings  and  Lamentations ;  Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote 
Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs  and  Ecclesiastes;  the  men  of 
the  great  synagogue  wrote  Ezekiel,  and  the  twelve  (minor  proph- 
ets), Daniel  and  the  roll  of  Esther;  Ezra  wrote  his  book  and  the 
genealogy  of  Chronicles  until  himself."* 

Thus  this  tract  assigns  writers  to  all  the  Biblical  books. 
But  it  is  very  clear  that  "  write  "  in  this  passage  does 
not  mean  compose  of  authorship,  but  commit  to  writing, 
whether  by  the  author  himself  or  others.  Thus  only  can 
we  explain  the  writing  of  Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of 
Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes  by  Hezekiah  and  his  company  ; 
and  of  Ezekiel,  the  minor  prophets  and  the  roll  of  Esther, 


*  See  Biblical  Siudy^  p.  176. 

(31) 


32  THE  HEXATEUCH 

by  the  men  of  the  great  synagogue.     If  this  be  true  in 

these  cases  we  cannot  be  sure  that  it  is  not  true  in  the 

other   cases   also.     This   statement    of  the    Mishna   is 
enlarged  upon  by  the  Gemara. 

"The  author  (of  the  Beraitha)  said,  Joshua  wrote  his  book  and 
the  eight  verses  of  the  law ;  this  is  taught  according  to  him  who 
says  of  the  eight  verses  of  the  law,  Joshua  wrote  them.  For  it  is 
taught :  And  Moses,  the  servant  of  the  Lord,  died  there.  How- 
is  it  possible  that  Moses  died  and  wrote  :  and  Moses  died  there  ? 
It  is  only  unto  this  passage  Moses  wrote,  afterwards  Joshua 
wrote  the  rest.  These  are  the  words  of  Rabbi  Jehuda.  Others 
say  of  Rabbi  Nehemiah.  But  Rabbi  Simeon  said  to  him  :  Is  it 
possible  that  the  book  of  the  law  could  lack  one  letter,  since  it 
is  written  :  Take  this  book  of  the  law  ?  It  is  only  unto  this  the 
Holy  One,  blessed  be  He  !  said,  and  Moses  said  and  wrote.  From 
this  place  and  onwards  the  Holy  One,  blessed  be  He !  said,  and 
Moses  wrote  with  weeping." 

The  Talmud  elsewhere  contains  other  conflicting  state- 
ments, which  cannot,  however,  claim  the  antiquity  or 
authority  of  the  passage  cited  above. 

The  ordinary  Jewish  view  is  that  Moses  also  wrote 
the  last  eight  verses  by  divine  dictation.'-^' 

A  still  more  ancient  and  higher  authority  in  some 
respects  is  the  Apocalypse  of  Ezra  f  from  the  first 
Christian  century,  printed  among  the  Apocryphal  books 
in  the  English  Bible,  and  preserved  in  five  versions,  and 
used  not  infrequently  by  the  Fathers  as  if  it  were  in- 
spired Scripture.  This  tradition  represents  that  the 
Law  and  all  the  holy  books  were  burned  at  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  and  lost  ;  that  Ezra 
under  divine  inspiration  restored  them  all,  and  also  com- 
posed seventy  others  to  be  delivered  to  the  wise  as  the 


*  See  Wogue,  Hlstoire  de  la  Bible,  1881,  p.  2t,  sq.  ;  Josephus,  Aidiquities, 
iv.  8,  48  ;  Philo,  Life  0/ Moses,  iii.,'3g. 
t  xiv.  19-46. 


THE  TRADITIONAL  TIIEORIRS  33 

esoteric  wisdom   for  the   interpretation  of  the  twenty- 
four. 

This  view  of  the  restoration  of  the  Old  Testament 
ivritings  by  Ezra  was  advocated  by  some  of  the  Fathers 
such  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,'^  Tcrtullian,f  Chrysos- 
tom,J  in  an  anonymous  writing  wrongly  attributed  to 
Augustine,§  and  the  Clementine  Homilies.||  Another 
common  opinion  of  the  Fathers  is  represented  by  Ire- 
naeus.Tf 

"  During  the  captivity  of  the  people  under  Nabuchadnezzar, 
the  Scriptures  had  been  corrupted,  and  when,  after  seventy  years, 
the  Jews  had  returned  to  their  own  land,  then  in  the  time  of 
Artaxerxes,  King  of  the  Persians,  (God)  inspired  Esdras,  the 
priest  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  to  recast  all  the  words  of  former 
prophets,  and  to  re-establish  with  the  people  the  Mosaic  legis- 
lation." 

With  him  agree  Theodoret  **  and  Basil.ft  Jerome  ift 
says  with  reference  to  this  tradition  :  "  Whether  you  wish 
to  say  that  Moses  is  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  that 
Ezra  restored  it,  is  indifferent  to  me."  Bellarmin  §§  is 
of  the  opinion  that  the  books  of  the  Jews  were  not 
entirely  lost,  but  that  Ezra  corrected  those  that  had 
become  corrupted,  and  improved  the  copies  he  restored. 
Junilius,  in  the  sixth  century,  author  of  the  first  extant 
Introduction, I II  a  reproduction  of  a  lost  v/ork  of  his 
instructor,  Paul  of  Nisibis,  of  the  Antiochian  school  of 
Exegesis,  makes  the  wise  discrimination  between  those 
Scriptures  having  their  authors  indicated  in  their  titles 
and   introductions,   and  those  whose  authorship  rested 


*  Siromata^  i.,  22.  t  De  cultu  foe^ninarum^  c.  3. 

X  Horn,  viii.,  in  Epist.  Hebraeos,  Migne's  edition,  xvii.,  p   74. 

§  De  Mirabilibus  Sacrce  Scriptta'ce^  ii.,  33.  ||  iii.,  c.  47. 

T[  Adv.  Haereses,  iii.,  21,  2.  **  Praef  in  Psabnos. 

•ft  Epist.  ad  Chilonem^  Migne's  edition,  iv  ,  p.  358.  W  Adv.  Helvitium. 

%%  De  Verba  Dei,  lib.  2.  |||  Institulio  regular  is  Divince  Legis. 


34  THE  HEXATEUCH 

purely  on  tradition,  in  the  latter  including  the  Penta- 
teuch and  Joshua.*  This  position  of  JuniHus  is  the 
true  scholarly  position.  It  puts  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  on  the  same  level  as  the  authorship  of  the 
other  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  work 
of  Junilius  held  its  own  as  an  authority  in  the  Western 
Church  until  the  Reformation.  It  would  be  difficult  to 
define  a  consensus  of  the  Fathers  in  regard  to  the 
authorship  of  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Little  attention  was  given  to  such  topics  in  the  six- 
teenth century.  How  the  Reformers  would  have  met 
these  questions  we  may  infer  from  their  freedom  with 
regard  to  traditional  views  in  the  few  cases  in  which 
they  expressed  themselves. 

Luther  denied  the  Apocalypse  to  John,  and  Eccle- 
siastes  to  Solomon.  He  maintained  that  the  epistle  of 
James  was  not  an  apostolic  writing.  He  regarded  Jude 
as  an  extract  from  2d  Peter,  and  asks  what  it  matters  if 
Moses  should  not  himself  have  written  the  Pentateuch. f 
Calvin  denied  the  Pauline  authorship  of  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews  and  doubted  the  Petrine  authorship  of  2d 
Peter.  He  held  that  Ezra  or  some  one  else  edited  the 
Psalter,  and  regarded  Ezra  as  the  author  of  Malachi, 
Malachi  being  his  surname.  He  also  constructed  a 
harmony  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  after  the  model 
of  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels. 

Questions  of  human  authorship  and  date  of  Biblical 
writings  troubled  the  Reformers  but  little.  They  had 
to  battle  against  the  Vulgate  for  the  original  text  and 
popular  versions,  and  for  a  simple  grammatical  exegesis 
over   against    traditional    authority   and    the    manifold 


*  See  Kihn,  Theodor  von  Mopsuestia^  ss,  319-330,  §viii.,  2. 
+  Vorreden  in  Walch's  edition  of  Luther's  Werken^  xiy.,  pp.  35,    146-153, 
Tischreden^  I.,  p.  28. 


THE   TRADITIONAL   THEORIES  35 

sense.  Hence  it  is  that  on  these  literary  questions  the 
symbols  of  the  Reformation  take  no  position  whatever 
except  to  lay  stress  upon  the  sublimity  of  the  style,  the 
unity  and  harmony  of  Scripture,  and  the  internal  evi- 
dence of  its  inspiration  and  authority. 

The  Westminster  standards  are  in  entire  accord  with 
the  other  Reformed  Confessions  and  the  faith  of  the 
Reformation  on  these  subjects.  They  express  a  devout 
admiration  and  profound  reverence  for  the  holy,  majes- 
tic character  and  style  of  the  divine  Word,  but  do  not 
define  the  human  authors  and  dates  of  the  various  writ- 
ings. As  Prof.  A.  F.  Mitchell,  of  St.  Andrew's,  well 
states : 

"  Any  one  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  compare  their  list  of 
the  canonical  books  with  that  given  in  the  Belgian  Confession  or 
the  Irish  articles,  may  satisfy  himself  that  they  held  with  Dr. 
Jameson  that  the  authority  of  these  books  does  not  depend  on 
the  fact  whether  this  prophet  or  that  wrote  a  particular  book  or 
parts  of  a  book,  whether  a  certain  portion  was  derived  from  the 
Elohist  or  the  Jehovist,  whether  Moses  wrote  the  close  of  Deute- 
ronomy, Solomon  was  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  or  Paul  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  in  the  fact  that  a  prophet,  an  in- 
spired man,  wrote  them,  and  that  they  bear  the  stamp  and  im- 
press of  a  divine  origin."  Minutes  of  the  Wcstmitister  Assembly, 
p.  xlix. 

And  Matthew  Poole,  the  great  Presbyterian  critic  of 
the  seventeenth  century,  quotes  with  approval  the  fol- 
lowing from  Melchior  Canus : 

"  It  is  not  much  material  to  the  Catholick  faith  that  any  book 
was  written  by  this  or  that  author,  so  long  as  the  Spirit  of  God 
is  beheved  to  be  the  author  of  it;  which  Gregory  deHvers  and 
explains  :  For  it  matters  not  with  what  pen  the  King  writes  his 
letter,  if  it  be  true  that  he  writ  it."  Blow  at  the  Root,  4th  ed., 
1671,  p.  228. 


IV. 


THE   RISE   OF  CRITICISM. 

The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was  first  ques- 
tioned in  modern  times  by  Carlstadt,^  who  left  the  author 
undetermined.  The  Roman  Catholic  scholar  Masius,  and 
the  British  philosopher  Hobbes  distinguished  between 
Mosaic  originals  and  our  present  Pentateuch,  but  the 
Roman  Catholic  priest  Peyrerius,t  and  especially  Spi- 
noza,:]: first  arranged  the  objections  to  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship in  formidable  array,  the  latter  reviving  the  doubts 
of  Aben  Ezra. 

They  presented  evidence  against  the  Mosaic  author- 
ship from  1 8  different  passages  as  follows.  We  shall 
classify  them  and  test  them. 

I. —  Historical  Objections. 

(i).  Gen.  xii.  6.  "  The  Canaanite  was  then  in  the 
land  "  implies  a  time  when  this  was  not  the  case,- that  is 
centuries  after  the  conquest  by  Joshua. 

(2).  Gen.  xiv.  14.  "And  pursued  as  far  as  Dan." 
But  Dan  did  not  receive  this  name  until  long  after  the 
death  of  Moses  ;  for  Judges  xviii.  29  tells  us  that  the 

*  De  Scriptor.  Caiion^  %  85,  1521. 
t  In  his  Syst.  T/ieo.  Praead.^  1660,  liv.,  cap.  i. 
\  In  his  Tract,  Thco.  Pali/.,  1670,  c.  8. 
(36) 


THE   RISE  OF  CRITICISM 


37 


Danites  in  the  times  of  the  Judges  *' called  the  name  of 
the  city  Dan,  after  the  name  of  Dan  their  father  who 
was  born  unto  Israel  ;  howbeit  the  name  of  the  city 
was  Laish  at  the  first."       s^^   ^  ^^^—  >  ^/  ^  b 

(3).  Gen.  xxxvi.  gives  a  list  of  kings  reigning  in 
Edom  :  ''  before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel."  (Ver.  31).  This  implies  an  author  living 
after  the  establishment  of  kings  in  Israel  not  earlier  than 
the  Hebrew  monarchy. 

(4).  Ex.  xvi.  35.  ''And  the  children  of  Israel  did 
eat  the  manna  forty  years,  until  they  came  to  a  land  in- 
habited ;  they  did  eat  the  manna,  until  they  came  unto 
the  borders  of  the  land  of  Canaan."  This  passage  im- 
plies the  entrance  into  Canaan  after  the  death  of  Moses 
and  the  author's  knowledge  of  the  event  described  in 
Jos.  V.  12. 

(5).  Deut.  i.  I.  ''These  be  the  words  which  Moses 
spake  unto  all  Israel  beyond  Jordan  "  implies  an  author 
who  was  in  Palestine,  for  only  such  an  one  could  write 
"  beyond  Jordan." 

(6).  Deut.  ii.  12.  The  children  of  Esau  destroyed 
the  Horites  and  dwelt  in  their  stead  "as  Israel  did  unto 
the  land  of  his  possession  which  Yahweh  gave  unto 
them."     This  implies  the  conquest  of  Canaan. 

(7).  Deut.  iii.  ii.  "For  only  Og,  king  of  Bashan, 
remained  of  the  remnant  of  the  Rephaim  ;  behold,  his 
bedstead  was  a  bedstead  of  iron  ;  is  it  not  in  Rabbah  of 
the  children  of  Ammon?"  This  implies  a  writer  look- 
ing back  upon  the  story  of  the  conquest  of  Bashan  from 
a  date  much  later  than  Moses. 

(8).  Deut.  iii.  14.  "  And  called  them  after  his  own 
name  Havvoth-jair  unto  this  day."  This  implies  a  day 
long  after  this  naming  which  was  made  in  the  last  days 
of  Moses. 


38  THE  HEXATEUCH 

(9).  Deut.  xxxiv.  10.  ''And  there  hath  not  arisen 
a  prophet  since  in  Israel  Hke  unto  Moses."  This  implies 
a  time  long  subsequent  to  Moses. 

These  are  all  historical  statements  which  are  incon- 
sistent with  Mosaic  authorsliip.  Either  then  they  are 
notes  of  later  editors,  or  else  the  writings  which  contain 
them  must  be  later  than  the  history  implied  in  them. 
Two  other  instances  have  not  altogether  stood  the  test 
of  criticism. 

(10).  Gen.  xxii.  14.  Mt.  Moriah  is  called  the 
mount  of  God,  which  could  not  be  so  called  until  the 
erection  of  the  temple.  This  objection  rests  upon  a 
mistake.  It  is  not  called  the  Mount  of  Yahweh,  but  the 
place  is  called  "  Yahweh  sees."  As  it  is  said  to  this  day, 
"  in  the  mount  where  Yahweh  appears."  This  proverbial 
expression,  however,  implies  a  long  sojourn  in  the  Holy 
Land,  and,  therefore,  a  period  long  subsequent  to  Moses. 

(ij).  Deut.  ii.  5.  "Not  so  much  as  for  the  sole  of 
the  foot  to  tread  on,"  when  compared  with  I  Chron. 
xviii.,  where  David  conquers  Edom,  shows  an  inconsist- 
ency, and  doubtless  implies  a  time  when  Israel  was 
friendly  with  Edom,  but  does  not  in  itself  imply  a  later 
date  than  Moses. 

II. — Indications  of  Special  Ant Jior ship. 

(12).  Num.  xxi.  14.  The  citation  of  the  book  of 
the  wars  of  Yahweh  implies  another  author  than  Moses. 

(13).  Deut.  xxvii.  2  seq.,  comp.  Jos.  viii.  30  scq.,  where 
the  law  was  written  on  an  altar,  implies  a  law  much  less 
extensive  than  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  now  generally 
agreed  that  the  reference  here  is  to  the  Deuteronomic 
code. 


THE  RI3E  OF  CRITICISM  39 

III. —  Inconsistencies. 

(14).  Deut.  X.  8,  which  narrates  the  separation  of 
the  Levites  at  Jotbathah  is  inconsistent  with  their  separa- 
tion before  the  death  of  Aaron  as  reported  in  Leviticus 
and  Numbers. 

(15).  Ex.  iv.  20,  which  represents  that  Moses  took 
his  family  with  him  to  Egypt,  is  inconsistent  with  Ex. 
xviii.  2  scq.^  which  states  that  they  remained  with  his 
father-in-law  in  Midian.  Modern  critics  explain  these 
variations  as  due  to  the  different  stories  of  the  same 
thing  recorded  in  different  documents. 

IV. —  Personal  Considerations. 

(16).  Ex.  xxxiii.  II.  ''Yahvveh  spake  unto  Moses 
face  to  face." 

(17).  Num.  xii.  3.  "Now  the  man  Moses  was  very 
meek,  above  all  the  men  which  were  upon  the  face  of 
the  earth." 

(18).  Deut.  xxxi.  9.     "And   Moses  wrote  this  law." 

Several  other  passages — Num.  i.  i  ;  ii.  2  ;  v.  i  ;  xxxi. 
14;  Deut.  xxxi.  I  ;  xxxiii.  i,  where  Moses  is  spoken 
of  in  the  third  person  and  sometimes  in  flattering  terms. 

Some  of  these  might  be  accounted  for  after  the  anal- 
ogy of  the  classic  historians  as  a  variation  of  style,  but 
the  laudatory  references  are  not  to  be  explained  in  this 
way  and  therefore  count  against  the  Mosaic  authorship 
of  them.  We  are  therefore  compelled  either  to  take  them 
as  editorial  notes,  or,  as  this  is  difficult  if  not  impossible  in 
many  of  these  cases,  to  regard  them  as  from  documents 
written  by  other  persons  than  Moses. 

These  objections  of  Peyrerius  and  Spinoza  are  of  an 
external  character.  A  few  of  them  have  been  satisfac- 
torily explained  and  their  force  dulled  ;  others  hav^e  been 


v^j^ 


40 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


admitted  as  implying  the  work  of  later  editors.  The 
most  of  them  have  maintained  their  validity.  >;,';; -^J^^ 

Soon  after  Spinoza,  Richard  Simon,  a  Roman  Catholic, 
published  his  work  on  the  Historical  Criticism  of  the 
Old  Testament."^  He  first  began  to  apply  historical  crit- 
icism in  a  systematic  manner  to  the  study  of  the  books 
of  the  Old  Testament.  He  represented  the  historical 
books  as  made  up  of  the  ancient  writings  of  the  proph- 
ets, who  were  public  scribes,  and  who  wrote  down  the 
history  in  official  documents  on  the  spot,  from  the  time 
of  Moses  onward,  so  that  the  Pentateuch  in  its  present 
shape  is  not  by  Moses.  Simon  distinguished  in  the 
Pentateuch  between  that  which  was  written  by  Moses, 
e.g.,  the  commands  and  ordinances  ;  and  that  written  by 
the  prophetical  scribes,  the  greater  part  of  the  history. 
As  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  were  made  up  by 
abridgments  and  summaries  of  the  ancient  acts  preserved 
in  the  archives  of  the  nation,  so  was  the  Pentateuch.f 
The  later  prophets  edited  the  works  of  the  earlier  proph- 
ets and  added  explanatory  statements.  Simon  pre- 
sents as  evidences  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta- 
teuch:  (i).  The  double  account  of  the  deluge.  (2). 
The  lack  of  order  in  the  arrangement  of  the  narratives 
and  laws.     (3).  The  diversity  of  the  style. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Roman  Catholic  scholar  goes 
deeper  into  the  subject  than  the  philosopher  Spinoza 
had  gone.  He  presents  another  class  of  evidences. 
These  three  lines  were  not  sufficiently  worked  by  Simon. 
He  fell  into  the  easy  temptation  of  expending  his 
strength  on  the  elaboration  and  justification  of  his 
theory.  The  facts  he  discovered  have  proved  of  perma- 
nent value,  and  have  been  worked  as  a  rich  mine  by  later 


*  Histoire  Critique  de  Vieux  Testametit^  1678.  f/.  c.,  p.  17,  seq. 


THE  RISE  OF  CRITICISM  41 

scholars,  but  his  theory  was  iit  once  attacked  and  de- 
stroyed. The  Arminian  Clericus,  in  an  anonymous 
work,*  assailed  Simon  for  his  abuse  of  Protestant  writers, 
but  really  went  to  greater  lengths  than  Simon.  He  dis- 
tinguishes in  the  Pentateuch  three  classes  of  facts,  those 
before  Moses,  those  during  his  time,  and  those  subse- 
quent to  his  death, f  and  represents  the  Pentateuch  in 
its  present  form  as  composed  by  the  priest  sent  from 
Babylon  to  instruct  the  inhabitants  of  Samaria  in  the 
religion  of  the  land,  2  Kings  xvii.:j:  Afterward  he  gave 
up  this  theory  and  took  the  ground  §  of  interpolations  by 
a  later  editor.  Anton  Van  Dale,||  distinguishes  between 
the  Mosaic  code  and  the  Pentateuch,  which  latter  Ezra 
composed  from  other  writings,  historical  and  prophetical, 
inserting  the  Mosaic  code  as  a  whole  in  his  work.  This 
was  also  essentially  the  view  of  Semler.T" 

These  various  writers  brought  to  light  a  most  valuable 
collection  of  facts  which  demanded  the  attention  of 
Biblical  scholars  of  all  creeds  and  phases  of  thought. 
They  all  made  the  mistake  of  proposing  untenable 
theories  of  various  kinds  to  account  for  the  facts,  instead 
of  working  upon  the  facts  and  rising  from  them  by  in- 
duction and  generalization  to  permanent  results.  Some 
of  them,  like  Spinoza  and  Hobbes,  were  animated  by  a 
spirit  more  or  less  hostile  to  the  evangelical  faith. 
Others,  like  Carlstadt  and  Clericus,  were  heterodox  in 
other  matters.     The  most  important  investigations  were 


*  Sentimens  de  quelques  theologiens  de  Holland  sur  VHistoire  Critique^ 
Amst.,  1685. 

+  /.  c,  p.  107.  t  P.  129. 

§  Com.  on  Genesis^  introd.  de  Scriptore  Pent.,  §  ti.  Simon  replied  to  Cle- 
ricus in  Riponse  au  Livre  intitule  Sentimens,  etc.  Par  Le  Preur  de  Belleville, 
Rotterdam,  1686. 

I  De  origineet  progressu  idol.,  i6g5  (p.  71),  and  epist.  ad  Af or  in.  (p.  686). 

^Apparatus  ad  Liheralem  Vet.  Test.  Interp.,  1773  (p.  67). 


42  THE  HEXATEUCH 

those  of  the  Roman  Cathohcs,  Masius  and  Simon.  These 
authors,  in  a  Church  noted  for  its  adherence  to  tradition, 
felt  that  they  were  free  on  this  question  of  the  author- 
ship of  the  Pentateuch,  there  being  no  consensus  of  the 
Fathers  against  them. 

The  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  was  de- 
fended by  Huet,  a  Jesuit;*  Heidegger,  a  divine  of  the 
Reformed  Church  of  Switzerland  ;t  the  Dutch  Re- 
formed, Maresius,:]:  and  the  German  Lutheran,  Carpzov.§ 
These  scholastic  divines,  instead  of  seeking  to  account 
for  the  facts  brought  to  light  by  the  critics,  proceeded  to 
defend  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Pentateuch 
and  to  explain  away  these  facts.  Thus,  Huet  is  unwill- 
ing to  admit  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  account  of 
his  own  death.  Maresius  insists  that  the  testimony  of 
Christ  decides  the  matter  for  us.  Heidegger  argues  that 
the  whole  Pentateuch  was  found  by  Hilkiah  in  the 
temple  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  that  Christ  and  His  apos- 
tles ascribe  the  Pentateuch  to  Moses  as  author,  and  he 
follows  the  Rabbinical  tradition,  rejecting  the  traditions 
prevalent  with  the  Christian  fathers.  He  admits  that 
the  last  verses  of  Deuteronomy  were  added  by  Joshua 
or  some  one  else,  but  explains  Gen.  xxii.  14  as  a  proph- 
ecy of  the  temple  or  of  seeing  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and 
the  kings  of  Edom  prior  to  kings  in  Israe!,  Gen.  xxxvi. 
31,  as  a  line  of  kings  prior  to  Moses  as  king.  He  meets 
the  argument  from  diversity  of  style  by  the  remark  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  might  inspire  the  same  author  to  use  a 


*  Demonstratio  Evangelica.  1679,  iv.,  cap.  xiv. 

\  Exercitiones  Biblicce,  1700,  Dissert,  ix. 

X  Praef.  apol.pro  authentia  script.^  pp.  23-36.  And  in  his  Refutatio Fabulcz 
Prceadamitica,  Gronigae,  1656,  he  meets  the  various  arguments  of  Peyrerius. 

%  Introductio  ad  Libros  Canonicos^  Bib.  Vet.  Test..,  Edit.  2,  Lipsae  1731. 
See  also  Du  Pin  Dissert,  prelim.  Bib.  des  auteurs  eccl..,  Paris,  1688. 


THE   RISE  OF  CRITICISM  43 

variety  of  styles."^  He  meets  the  argument  from  defect- 
ive arrangement  by  representing  it  as  a  charge  against 
the  Holy  Spirit. f  Carpzov  calls  in  the  spirit  of  prophecy 
to  account  for  the  kings  of  Edom  (Gen.  xxxvi.  31),  and 
the  account  of  the  continuation  of  the  manna  until  the 
conquest  (Ex.  xvi.  35).  Such  special  pleading  and  arbi- 
trary conjectures  were  as  hurtful  from  the  scholastic  side 
as  were  the  hasty  and  ill-adjusted  theories  from  the 
other. 

There  were,  however,  in  those  times,  other  divines 
who  looked  the  facts  in  the  face  and  took  a  better  way. 
Thus  Witsius  j^  admits  /o?ir  interpolations,  after  care- 
fully considering  the  objections  that  were  urged  to  the 
Mosaic  authorship,  and  is  followed  by  Dr.  Graves,§ 
who  admits  six  additions  by  a  later  hand,  and  also  by 
Adam  Clarke, ||  who,  in  general,  admits  additions  by 
Ezra.  PrideauxT[  represents  Ezra  as  editing  the  Penta- 
teuch and  making  additions  in  a  number  of  places — 
illustrating,  connecting  and  completing  the  narratives.** 


*  "  In  Spiritus  s.  quinetiam  calamus  dirigentis  arbitrio  fuit,  verba  et  verborum 
ordinem  sugjere,  prout  ipsi,  visuum  est.  Sicut  diversos  Scriptores  diversi  modo 
ita  inspiravit,  ut  diverso  stylo  uterentur:  ita  eundem  Script orem  quo  minus 
diversi  modo  inspiraret,  nihil  vetabat  equidem,"  p.  269. 

t  Nam  spiritus  prophetias  et  infallibilitatis  si  in  uno,  veluti  scriba,  revisore  pec- 
care,  abberrare  potest,  poterit  etiam  in  altero,  puta  in  Mose,"p.  270. 

X  Misc.  Sacra,  1692,  pp.  104,  130. 

§  Lectures  on  the  Four  Last  Books  0/  the  Poitateuch^  1807,  4th  Edit.,  1831, 
p.  439  sq. 

\  Holy  Bible,  1810-26. 

\  Old  and  New  Testaments  connected,  1716-18,  Part  I.,  Book  V.  (3). 

**  "The  third  thing  which  Ezra  did  about  the  holy  Scriptures  in  his  edition 
of  them  was,  that  he  added  in  several  places  throughout  the  books  of  this  edition 
what  appeared  necessary  for  the  illustrating,  connecting,  or  completing  of  them  ; 
wherein  he  was  assisted  by  the  same  Spirit  by  which  they  were  at  first  wrote. 
Of  this  sort  we  may  reckon  the  last  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  which,  giving  an 
account  of  the  death  and  burial  of  Moses,  and  of  the  succession  of  Joshua  after 
him,  it  could  not  be  written  by  Moses  himself,  who  undoubtedly  was  the  pen- 
man of  the  rest  of  that  book.     It  seems  most  probable  that  it  was  added  by 


44-  TFIE   HEXATEUCH 

Vitringa  ^  gave  a  more  careful  consideration  to  the  facts, 
and  taught  that  Moses  collected,  digested,  and  embel- 
lished the  documents  of  the  patriarchs  and  supplied 
their  deficiencies.  This,  he  argues,  does  not  destroy  the 
authority  of  the  book,  for  Moses  was  aided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  So  Luke  prepared  his  history  of  the  Gospel 
from  the  narratives  of  others  and  annotations  of  eye- 
witnesses, and  these  are  of  no  less  authority  than  the 
narratives  of  Matthew  and  John.  The  aid  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  given  to  them,  whether  they  composed  as 
eye-witnesses  or  digested  the  narratives  of  others.  This 
view  of  Vitringa  was  advocated  by  Calmet,f  Bishop 
Gleig,:|:  and  others.  About  the  same  time  several  Ro- 
man Catholic  divines  took  ground  independently  in  favor 
of  the  theory  of  the  use  of  written  documents  by  Moses 
in  the  composition  of  Genesis,  namely,  Abb^  Fleury,§ 
and  Abb6  Laurent  Francois. ||  Prideaux,  Calmet,  Vi- 
tringa and  their  associates  represented  the  true    schol- 


Ezra  at  this  time.  And  such  we  may  also  reckon  the  several  interpolations 
which  occur  in  many  places  of  the  holy  Scriptures."  He  refers  especially  to 
Gen.  xii.  6;  xiv.  14 ;  xxii.  14  ;  xxxvi.  3;  Ex.  xvi.  35  ;  Deut.  ii.  12 ;  iii.  11,  14  ; 
and  concludes  :  "  Of  which  interpolations  undoubtedly  Ezra  was  the  author,  in 
all  the  books  which  passed  his  examination,  and  Simon  the  Just  of  all  the  rest 
which  were  added  afterward,  for  they  all  seemed  to  refer  to  those  latter  times. 
But  these  additions  do  not  detract  anything  from  the  divine  authority  of  the 
whole,  because  they  were  all  inserted  by  the  direction  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit 
which  dictated  all  the  rest." 

*  Observ.  Sacra,  c.  IV.,  2,  1722. 

■f  Com.  Litterale,  i']'2'2,  torn.  I.,  p.  xiii. 

X  Stackhouse's  History  of  the  Bibh%  corrected  and  improved,  1817,  Vol.  I., 

p.  XX. 

§  Moeurs  o'es  Israelites^  p.  6,  Bruxelles,  1701.  This  was  translated  into  Eng- 
lish and  enlarged  by  Adam  Clarke  ;  3d  edition,  1809. 

I  Preuves  de  la  Religion  de  Jesus  Christ,  contra  les  Spinosistes  et  les 
Deistes,  1751,  I.  2,  c.  3,  art.  7.  *'  II  est  plus  que  vrai-semblable  que  dans  la 
lignee,  ou  s'est  conservee  la  connoissance  de  Dieu  on  conservit  aussi  par  ecrit, 
des  memoires  des  ancicns  temps ;  car  les  hommes  n'  ont  jamais  ete  sans  ce 
soin." 


THE  RISE  OF   CRITICISM  45 

arly  position.  They  presented  a  reasonable  solution,  in 
view  of  the  facts  then  adduced.  They  laid  the  founda- 
tions for  Evangelical  Criticism  in  the  great  revival  of 
Higher  Criticism,  which  was  about  to  begin  and  run  a 
long  and  successful  course.  We  shall  divide  the  history 
of  this  movement  of  Higher  Criticism  into  three  stadia  : 
the  documentary,  supplementary,  and  development  hy- 
potheses. 


V. 


THE   DOCUMENTARY   HYPOTHESIS. 

Jean  ASTRUC,  a  Roman  Catholic  physician,  opened  a 
new  era  for  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  1753  he  made 
it  evident  that  Genesis  was  composed  of  several  docu- 
ments. He  presented  to  the  learned  world,  with  some 
hesitation  and  timidity,  his  discovery  that  the  use  of 
the  divine  names  Elohim  and  Yahweh  divided  the  book 
of  Genesis  into  two  ^reat  memoirs  and  nine  lesser  ones, 
as  follows  :  vii.  20-23  ;  xiv.,  xix.  29-38  ;  xxii.  20-24  5 
XXV.  12-18;  xxvi.  34-35;  xxviii.  6-9;  xxxiv.,  xxxv. 
28-xxxvi.  The  advantages  of  this  discovery  are  ad- 
mirably presented:  (i).  It  explains  the  singularity  of 
the  use  of  these  two  divine  names.  (2).  It  explains  the 
repetitions  of  the  same  subject  by  distributing  these 
among  the  memoirs.  (3).  It  excuses  Moses  from  neg- 
ligence in  composition  by  the  supposition  that  he 
arranged  these  memoirs  in  four  different  columns,  as 
Origen  did  the  ancient  versions  in  his  Hexapla  and  as 
Harmonists  arrange  the  four  Gospels. 

This  was  a  real  discovery,  which,  after  a  hundred 
years  of  debate,  has  won  the  consent  of  the  vast  ma- 
jority of  Biblical  scholars,  f  His  analysis  is  in  some 
respects  too  mechanical,  and,  in  not  a  few  instances,  is 
defective  and  needed  rectification,  but  as  a  whole  it  has 
(46) 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  ^^ 

been  maintained.  He  relies  also  too  much  upon  the 
different  use  of  the  divine  names,  and  too  little  upon  va- 
riations in  style,  language,  and  narrative.  Since  his  date 
his  line  of  argument  has  been  more  thoroughly  worked 
out.  Every  use  of  the  divine  names  throughout  the 
Hebrew  Bible,  has  been  carefully  examined  in  the  prep- 
aration of  the  new  Hebrew  Lexicon,  edited  by  Dr.  Brown, 
with  the  co-operation  of  Canon  Driver  and  the  author, 
and  a  fresh  and  exhaustive  investigation  has  been  made 
of  the  whole  subject.  These  are  the  facts  :  In  Ex.  vi.  2-3 
it  is  written  :  "  And  EloJiim  spake  unto  Moses,  and  said  -y  - 

unto  him,  I  am  YaJnuch  :  and  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  '  *i' 

unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  as  ' El  SJiadday,  but  by  my  . 

name  YaJnveh  I  was  not  known  to  them."     Turning  now  y- 

to  Genesis  we  ^nd' El  Shadday  used  in  connection  with     "  ^"  '  ' 
the  covenants  made  with  Abraham  and  Jacob ;  but  we 
also  find  that  the   divine  name  Yahveh  is  placed  in  the 
mouth  of  the  antediluvians  and  patriarchs  from  Genesis, 
chap,  ii.,  onward.      Here   is   a  glaring  inconsistency  not 
invented  by  critics^but  on  the  surface  of  Genesis  itself. 
The  discovery  of  Astruc,  that  this  inconsistency  is  due 
to  a   usage  of  different   documents,  removed  the   diffi- 
culty.    Criticism  has  found  that  the  priestly  writer  whoj^^^j;^^ 
wrote  Ex.  vi.  never   uses  the  divine  name  Yahweh   in\  ^^tyu 
his  document  prior  to  Ex.  vi.,  when   he  states  that  it     '^^^^ 
was  revealed  to   Moses  for  the  first  time.     The  use  of 
the  divine  name  Yahweh  in  Genesis  is  in   the  Judaic 
document,  which  nowhere  mentions  or  seems  to  know 
anything  about  the  revelation  of  the  name  Yahweh  to 
Moses.     He  uses  it  as  the  name  of  God  from  the  begin- 
ning.    The  early  analysts  were  confronted  with  the  dif- 
ficulty  that    there  was  a  very  singular  and  apparently 
capricious  use  of  the  divine  name  left  in  the  Judaic  doc- 
ument after  the  Elohistic  document  had  been  eliminated. 


48  THE  HEXATEUCH 

This  led  to  a  more  thorough  study  of  that  document 
which  resulted  in  the  discovery  that  it  had  been  closely 
connected  with  another  document  which  uses  the  divine 
name  Elohim.  This  discovery  was  made  by  Ilgen  in 
1798  ;  ^  but  the  discovery  was  ignored  until  a  much  later 
date  when  it  was  rediscovered  by  Hupfeld. 

Looking  now  at  Exodus  iii.,  we  observe  that  it  tells  of 
a  revelation  of  the  divine  name  Yahweh  to  Moses,  at 
Horeb.  This  is  a  parallel  narrative  to  chapter  vi.,  and 
is  now  recognized  by  criticism  as  from  the  Ephraimitic 
author.  Thus  the  whole  difficulty  of  the  use  of  the 
divine  names  is  solved.  The  critics  did  not  make  the 
difficulty.  They  have  removed  the  difficulty  by  the 
science  of  criticism.  This  Ephraimitic  author  not  only 
uses  the  divine  name  Elohim,  but  it  is  his  style  to  use  it 
with  the  definite  article,  and  it  is  also  his  style  to  use  it 
by  preference,  even  after  the  divine  name  Yahweh  was 
revealed  ;  whereas  the  priestly  writer  seldom  uses  Elohim 
after  he  tells  of  the  revelation  of  Yahweh  to  Moses. f 

In  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  we  find  a  fourth  docu- 
ment which  also  extends  through  Joshua,  and  appears 
occasionally  in  the  earlier  narratives.  It  is  the  style  of 
this  writer  to  use  the  terms  Yahweh  thy  God,  or  Yahweh 
your  God.  He  uses  Yahweh  thy  God  238  times.  This 
phrase  is  used  elsewhere  in  the  Hexateuch,  5  times  in 
the  Ten  Words ;  3  times  in  the  ancient  law  of  worship, 
in  the  covenant  codes  and  in  two  passages  Gen.  xxvii. 
20,  Ex.  XV.  26,  in  verses  which  present  other  reasons 
for  being  considered  editorial  seams. 

Other  peculiarities  in  the  use  of  divine  names  may  be 
mentioned  here.  Adojiay,  **  my  Lord,"  as  applied  to  God, 
is  used  in  J  13  times,  elsewhere  in  the   Hexateuch  only 


^Urkiaiden  des  yci'iisalenier   Tetnpel-ajxhivs.  f  See  Appendix  I. 


THE   DOCUMENTARY   HYPOTHESIS  49 

in  Gen.  xx.  4  ;  (K  ?)  and  Ex.  xv.  17,  (Song  of  Red  Sea, 
where  the  Samaritan  codex  has  Yahvveh).  Adonay  Yah- 
zvch  is  used  only  in  Gen.  xv.  2,  8  ;  Jos.  vii.  7  (J)  and  Dt. 
iii.  24  ;  ix.  26  (D).  "  God  of  Abraham  "  is  a  phrase  of 
J.  "  Israel's  God  "  is  a  phrase  of  E,  used  9  times.  It 
is  also  used  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  23  (covenant  code  of  J)  and 
Jos.  vii.  13,  19,  20,  where  JE  are  so  mixed  that  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  disentangle  them,  and  by  R  in  Num.  xvi.  9  ;  Jos. 
ix.  18,  19,  xxii.  24  ;  x.  40,  42;  xiii.  14,  33.  "God  of 
the  Hebrews"  is  a  phrase  of  JE,  used  5  times.  **  Other 
gods  "  is  a  phrase  of  D,  used  in  the  Hexateuch  besides 
only  in  the  Ten  Words,  in  the  Deuteronomic  expression 
Ex.  XX.  3  =  Dt.  V.  7  ;  and  in  the  covenant  code  of  E,  Ex. 
xxiii.  18=  "other  God,"  of  the  covenant  code  of  J,  Ex. 
xxxiv.  14,  possibly  by  editorial  change  ;  and  Jos.  xxiv.  2, 
16  (E);  Dt.  xxxi.  18,  20  (JE).  Elohim  is  construed  with 
the  plural  verb  only  in  E,  Gen.  xx.  13,  xxxv.  7,  Jos. 
xxiv.  19. 

The  attention  of  German  scholars  was  called  to  this 
discovery  of  the  use  of  the  divine  names  by  Jerusalem. 
Eichhorn  was  independently  led  to  the  same  opinion. 
In  1780  he  published  his  Introduction  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

Eichhorn  combined  in  one  the  results  of  Simon  and 
Astruc,  embracing  the  various  elements  in  an  organic 
method  which  he  called  the  Higher  Criticism. 

In  the  preface  to  his  2d  edition,  1787,  he  says  : 

"  I  am  obhged  to  give  the  most  pains  to  a  hitherto  entirely 
un worked  field,  the  investigation  of  the  intern?!  condition  of 
the  particular  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  by  help  of  the 
Higher  Criticism  (a  new  name  to  no  Humanist).  Let  any  one 
think  what  they  will  of  these  efforts,  my  own  consciousness 
tells  me,  that  thoy  are  the  result  of  very  careful  investigation, 
although  no  one  can  be  less  wrapt  up  in  them  than  I  their  author. 


50  THE  HEXATEUCH 

The  powers  of  one  man  hardly  suffice  to  complete  such  investi- 
gations so  entirely  at  once.  They  demand  a  healthful  and  ever 
cheerful  spirit,  and  how  long  can  any  one  maintain  it  in  such 
toilsome  investigations  ?  Xhey  demand  the  keenest  insight  into 
the  internal  condition  of  every  book  ;  and  who  will  not  be 
dulled  after  a  while  ?" 

Eichhorn  separated  the  Elohistic  and  Jehovistic  docu- 
ments in  Genesis  with  great  pains  and  wonderful  success, 
recognizing  besides  as  separate  documents  ii.  4-iii.  24; 
xiv.  ;  xxxiii.  i8-xxxiv.  31;  xxxvi. ;  xlix.  1-27.  This 
analysis  of  Eichhorn  has  been  the  basis  of  all  critical  in- 
vestigation since  his  day,  and  notwithstanding  the  sub- 
sequent distinction  of  a  second  Elohist  and  Redactor, 
the  results  of  Eichhorn  have  been  maintained.* 

The  great  advantages  of  this  analysis  are  admirably 
stated  by  Eichhorn  (ii.,  p.  329) : 

"  For  this  discovery  of  the  internal  condition  of  the  first  books 
of  Moses,  party  spirit  will  perhaps  for  a  pair  of  decennials  snort 
at  the  Higher  Criticism  instead  of  rewarding  it  with  the  full 
thanks  that  are  due  it,  for  (1)  the  credibility  of  the  book  gains 
by  such  a  use  of  more  ancient  documents.  (2)  The  harmony  of 
the  two  narratives  at  the  same  t^me,  with  their  slight  deviations, 


*Thus  Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith,  in  his  article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review^  iii., 
P-  375»  in  showing  the  present  consensus  of  the  critics,  says  :  "  If  we  find,  how- 
ever, that  the  recognized  leaders,  though  far  apart  on  the  question  of  the  '  order 
of  production  '  of  different  documents,  are  substantially  agreed  as  to  what  makes 
up  each  document,  we  ought  to  recognize  that  the  unanimity  here  is  so  much  the 
stronger  on  account  of  the  diversity  there.  An  examination  shows  that  in  the 
first  thirty  chapters  of  Genesis  the  following  passages  are  unariimously  accepted 
by  Hupfeld,  Noldeke,  Dillmann,  Wellhausen,  and  Kayser,  as  making  up  one  of 
the  documents  called  by  Dillmann  A  ;  by  Wellhausen  Q  ;  to  wit  :  i.  i — ii.  3  ;  v. 
1-28,  30-32 ;  vi.  9-22;  viii.  1-4,  13-19;  ix.  1-17,  28,  29 ;  xi.  10-26,  32  ;  xii.  4,  5 ; 
xiii.  6,  II,  12;  xvi.  3,  15,  16  ;  xvii.  1-27  ;  xix.  29  ;  xxi.  2-5  ;  xxiii.  1-20  ;  xxv.  7- 
II,  17,  23,  26 ;  xxvi.  ^4,  35  ;  xxviii.  1-9  (I  have  disregarded  fractions  of  a  verse)." 
Now  it  shows  the  keenness  and  accuracy  of  Eichhorn  as  well  as  the  inviticible 
strength  of  the  evidence  that  in  his  first  effort,  his  Elohist  embraces  all  of  the 
passages  given  above  except  the  detached  verses,  xii.  4,  5  ;  xiii.  6,  11,  12  ;  xvi. 
3,  13,  16  ;  xxv.  26. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS 


51 


proves  their  independence  and  mutual  reliability.  (3)  Interpre- 
ters will  be  relieved  of  difficulty  by  this  Higher  Criticism  which 
separates  document  from  document.  (4)  Finally  the  gain  of 
Criticism  is  also  great.  If  the  Higher  Criticism  has  now  for  the 
fii^st  distinguished  author  from  author,  and  in  general  charac- 
terized each  according  to  his  own  ways,  diction,  favorite  expres- 
sions, and  other  peculiarities,  then  her  lower  sister  who  busier 
hei-self  only  ^vitli  words,  and  spies  out  false  readings,  has  rules 
and  principles  by  which  she  must  test  particular  readings."  * 

Eichhorn  regarded  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers 
as  having  grown  from  the  collection  of  particular  writ- 
ings which  the  redactor  connected  by  historical  narra- 
tives :  Exodus  and  Leviticus  composed  at  Mt.  Sinai ; 
Numbers  in  the  land  of  Moab.  He  thought  that  Moses 
was  the  author  of  Deuteronomy,  except  the  last  chap- 
ter. Deuteronomy  is  characterized  as  the  law  book  for 
the  people,  and  the  legislation  of  the  other  books  as  the 
priests'  code.  He  remarks  that  the  Pentateuch  only 
claims  Moses  as  the  author  of  particular  sections,  and 
that  the  middle  books  are  not  cited  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment under  the  name  of  Moses.  He  explains  it  from 
the  fact  that  they  constituted  the  priests'  code  over 
against  Deuteronomy,  the  people's  book.  This  import- 
ant distinction  of  Eichhorn  was  also  a  valuable  discovery 
for  Higher  Criticism.  Long  neglected,  it  has  in  recent 
times  again  come  into  play,  as  we  shall  see  further  on. 
Eichhorn  also  admits  many  glosses  by  a  late  hand,  but 
in  general  abides  by  the  authorship  in  the  Mosaic  period, 
and  chiefly  by  Moses  himself. 


*  See  also  Urgeschichte  in  the  Reperto7-ium^  t-119,  v.,  p.  187. 

We  cannot  help  calling;  attention  to  the  fine  literary  sense  of  Eichhorn,  as 
manifest  in  the  following  extract  :  "  Read  it  (Genesis)  as  two  historical  works 
of  antiquity,  and  breathe  thereby  the  atmosphere  of  its  age  and  countr)'.  Forget 
then  the  century  in  which  thou  livest  and  the  knowledge  it  affords  thee  ;  and  if 
thou  canst  not  do  this,  dream  not  that  thou  wilt  be  able  to  enjoy  the  book  in  the 
spirit  of  its  origin." 


52  THE   HEXATEUCH 

Eichhorn  carried  his  methods  of  Higher  Criticism  into 
the  entire  Old  Testament  with  the  hand  of  a  master,  and 
laid  the  foundation  of  views  which  have  been  maintained 
ever  since  with  increasing  determination.  But  we  do 
not  find  that  in  all  cases  he  grasped  the  truth.  He  some- 
times chased  shadows,  and  framed,  in  some  cases,  vision- 
ary theories  in  relation  to  both  the  Old  and  the  New 
Testaments,  like  others  who  have  preceded  him  and  fol- 
lowed him.  He  could  not  transcend  the  limiits  of  his  age, 
and  adapt  himself  to  future  discoveries.  The  labors  of 
a  large  number  of  scholars,  and  the  work  of  a  century 
and  more  were  still  needed,  as  Eichhorn  modestly  an- 
ticipated. 

Eichhorn's  Higher  Criticism  swept  the  field  in  Ger- 
many in  his  day,  meeting  but  feeble  opposition.  Even  J. 
D.  Michaelis,  one  of  the  chief  scholars  of  Germany,  '*  the 
pillar  of  supernaturalism,"  who  sought  to  modify  some 
of  the  positions  of  Eichhorn,"^  although  he  was  willing 
to  accept  the  analysis  of  Astruc  and  Eichhorn  with  cer- 
tain modifications,t  met  with  little  favor.  He  died, 
leaving  his  work  incomplete. :j:  As  J.  G.  Gablcr,  the 
father  of  Biblical  Theology,  says :  §  The  analysis  of  the 
two  documents  by  Astruc,  Jerusalem,  and  especially  by 
Eichhorn,  is  so  masterly,  and  the  combination  of  the 
various  documents  in  one  by  Moses  has  been  made  so 


*  Einlcit.  in  d.  gotllicheyi  Schri/ten  d.  Alt.  Bundes,  1787. 

+  P.  267. 

\  Michaelis  denies  that  Ex.  i.-ii.  can  belong  to  the  Elohist.  ••  I  suppose  that 
what  Moses  wrote  of  himself  he  took  from  no  books  "  (p.  269)  ;  and  claims  that 
Genesis  i.,  the  account  of  the  Creation,  must  have  been  given  to  Moses  by  inspi- 
ration directly  from  God  (p.  259),  He  objects  to  the  artificial  analysis  of  Astruc, 
but  claims  that  when  DM7"N  and  rTlil^  are  used  throughout  entire  chapters,  a 
difference  of  style  is  evident  (p.  277).  He  recognizes  that  Moses  must  have  used 
written  as  well  as  traditional  and  monumental  sources, 

§  In  his  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  Eichhorn's  Urgeschichte^  i790. 


THE   DOCUMENTARY   HYPOTHESIS  53 

evident  that,  *'  in  our  day  it  can  be  regarded  as  settled 
and  presupposed  without  fear  of  any  important  opposi- 
tion." 

G.  L.  Bauer,  in  1794,*  followed  Eichhorn  in  his  anal- 
ysis, but  held  that  the  Pentateuch  was  composed  in  the 
time  of  David. t  Rosenmiiller  :j:  also  followed  Eichhorn, 
but  subsequently  §  changed  his  view,  influenced  chiefly 
by  J.  G.  Hasse,||  and  the  overdoing  of  the  analysis  by 
Ilgen.  JahnT  also  followed  Eichhorn  in  part.  Fulda"'"^ 
distinguishes  between  law  codes,  and  Pentateuch,  and 
puts  the  codes  first,  in  the  time  of  David,  the  present 
Pentateuch  in  the  Restoration.  Ottmar  (Nachtigal),ff 
makes  Jeremiah  the  last  collector  and  arranger  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

These  discussions  produced  little  impression  upon 
Great  Britain.  The  conflict  with  Deism  had  forced  the 
majority  of  her  divines  into  a  false  position.  If  they  had 
maintained  the  internal  divine  evidence  for  the  authority 
of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  evangelical  critical  position  of 
the  Reformers  and  Westminster  divines,  they  would  not 
have  hesitated  to  look  the  facts  in  the  face,  and  strive  to 
account  for  them  ;  they  would  not  have  committed  the 
grave  mistakes  by  which  Biblical  learning  was  almost 
paralyzed  in  Great  Britain  for  half  a  century.  Eager  for 
the  defence  of  traditional  views,  they,  for  the  most  part, 
fell  back  again  on  Jewish  Rabbinical  tradition  and  ex- 
ternal evidence,  contending  with  p:iinful  anxiety  for 
authors  and  dates,  and  so  antagonized  Higher  Criticism 
itself  as   Deistic   Criticism  and   Rationalistic  Criticism, 


*  Entwuf/ eine?-  Eitileit.,  3d  Edit.  E7itivurf  ein.  hist.-krit.  Eifileit.^  1806. 
t  P.  328.  X  Scholia^  1795,  i.,  pp.  7-12.  %\\\  Edition  iii.,  1821. 

\  Entdeckimgen  im  Eelde  der  dllesieft  E>  d-u  .-MeiischengescJiicIite . 
^  Int.  ad  rW.  Foed.  1793,  pp.  209-224.  **  Paulus,  Revert,  iii.,  p.  t8o. 

tt  Uber  d.  allmdhlige  Bildimg^  etc.,  in  Henke's  Magazin^  ii.,  433,  iv.  1-36 
(p.  30). 


54  THE  HEXATEUCH 

not  discriminating  between  those  who  were  attacking 
the  Scriptures  in  order  to  destroy  them,  and  those  who 
were  scarcJiing  the  Scriptures,  in  order  to  defend  them. 
Mozley  says :  *  *'  There  was  hardly  such  a  thing  as  BibH- 
cal  Criticism  in  this  country  (Great  Britain)  at  the  begin- 
ning of  this  century.  Poole's  Synopsis  contained  all 
that  an  ordinary  clergyman  could  wish  to  know.  Arnold 
is  described  as  in  all  his  glory  at  Rugby,  with  Poole's 
Synopsis  on  one  side  and  Facciolati  on  the  other." 

Thus  Bishop  Marsh,  in  1792,  in  a  brief  address  at 
Cambridge,-}-  takes  the  position : 

"  The  Pentateuch  contains  a  system  of  ceremonial  and  moral 
laws  which,  unless  we  reject  the  authority  of  all  history,  were 
observed  by  the  Israelites  from  the  time  of  their  departure  out 
of  Egypt  till  their  dispersion  at  the  taking  of  Jerusalem.  These 
laws,  therefore,  are  as  ancient  as  the  conquest  of  Palestine.  It  is 
also  an  undeniable  historical  fact  that  the  Jews  in  every  age 
believed  their  ancestors  had  received  them  from  the  hands  of 
Moses,  and  that  these  laws  were  the  basis  of  their  political  and 
religious  institutions  as  long  as  they  continued  to  be  a  people. 
We  are  therefore  reduced  to  this  dilemma,  to  acknowledge  either 
that  these  laws  were  actually  delivered  by  Moses,  or  that  a  whole 
nation,  during  fifteen  hundred  years,  groaned  under  the  weight 
of  an  imposture,  without  once  detecting  or  even  suspecting  the 
fraud  "  (p.  7). 

This  statement  is,  in  part,  quoted  and  approved  by 
Home  in  his  Introduction.:}:  But  it  is  a  weak  position  ; 
indeed,  the  chief  fault  of  the  traditional  theory,  as  we 
shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to  show.  The  evidence  from 
the  Scriptures  is  all  to  the  effect  that  these  laws  were  not 
observed,  and  any  argument  for  the  composition  of  the 
Pentateuch  that  rests  upon  their  observance  "  from  the 


*  Rejniniscencesy  1882,  American  edit,  ii  ,  p.  41. 

+  The  Authenticity  of  the  Five  Books  0/  Moses ^  4to,  p.  16. 

\  Vol.  ii.  19,  ist  edit.  1818. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  55 

time  of  the  departure  out  of  Egypt  till  their  disperse- 
ment,"  is  an  insecure  argument.  Bishop  Marsh  acknowl- 
edges a  few  alterations  in  the  Pentateuch,  "  a  circum- 
stance at  which  we  ought  not  to  be  surprised,  when  we 
reflect  on  the  many  thousands  of  transcripts  that  have 
been  made  from  it  in  the  course  of  three  thousand 
years."*  Faberf  says  :  *' At  any  one  epoch  during  the 
whole  existence  of  the  Hebrew  Polity,  it  would  have 
been  just  as  impossible  to  introduce  a  new  and  spurious 
Pentateuch,  as  it  would  be  now  impossible  to  introduce 
a  new  and  spurious  Bible.  In  each  case  the  reason  is 
the  very  same,  the  general  publicity  of  the  book.'"  X  ''  The 
general  publicity  "  of  the  Pentateuch  from  the  conquest 
to  the  exile  is  opposed  by  strong  evidence  to  the  contrary, 
as  we  shall  see  hereafter.  T.  Hartwell  Home,  in  1818, 
issued  his  Introduction  to  the  Critical  Study  and  Knowl- 
edge of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  passed  through  many 
editions,§  and  has  been  highly  esteemed  for  its  many 
excellent  qualities  by  several  generations  of  students. 
Home's  statement  in  the  Preface  to  the  second  edition 
of  his  work  shows  how  far  Great  Britain  was  behind  the 
continent  at  that  time.     He  says  : 

"  It  (the  work)  originated   in  the  author's  own  wants  many 
years  since,  ....  when  he  stood  in  need  of  a  guide  in  reading 

of  the  Holy  Scriptures At  this  time  the  author  had  no 

friend  to  assist  his  studies, — or  remove  his  doubts, — nor  any 
means  of  procuring  critical  works.  At  length  a  list  of  the  more 
eminent  foreign  Biblical  critics  fell  into  his  hands,  and  directed 
him  to  some  of  the  sources  of  information  which  he  was  seek- 
ing. He  then  resolved  to  procure  such  of  them  as  his  humble 
means  would  permit,  with  the  design  in  the  first  instance  of  sat- 


*Page  16.  \  HorcB  Mosaicce,  1801,  2d  edit.,  1818. 

\  An  unknown  reader  of  the  copy  we  have  exannined,  writes  on  the  margin  : 
?  2  Chron.  xxxiv.  14." 
§4th,    823;  loth,  1856. 


55  THE  HEXATEUCH 

isfying  his  own  mind  on  those  topics  which  had  perplexed  him, 
and  ultimately  of  laying  before  the  public  the  results  of  his  in- 
quiries, should  no  treatise  appear  that  might  supersede  such  a 
publication." 

It  is  evident  from  Home's  work  that  he  wrote  it  be- 
fore he  had  fully  read  the  literature  of  his  subject,  and 
before  he  had  mastered  its  principles  and  its  details. 
Home  passes  lightly  over  the  views  of  Eichhorn,  simply 
remarking : 

"  On  the  Continent  the  hypothesis  of  Calmet  was  adopted  by 
M.  Astruc,  who  fancied  that  he  discovered  traces  of  twtlve 
different  ancient  documents  from  which  the  earlier  chapters  of 
Exodus  as  well  as  the  entire  book  of  Genesis  are  compiled. 
These,  however,  were  reduced  by  Eichhorn  to  two  in  number, 
which  he  affirms  may  be  distinguished  by  the  appellations  of 
Elohim  and  Jehovah,  given  to  the  Almighty.  The  hypothesis  of 
Eichhorn  is  adopted  by  Rosenmiiller  (from  whom  it  was  bor- 
rowed by  the  late  Dr.  Geddes),  and  is  partially  acceded  to  by 
Jahn.  To  this  hypothesis  there  is  but  one  objection,  and  we 
apprehend  that  it  is  a  fatal  one,  namely,  the  total  silence  of  Moses 

as  to  any  documents  consulted  by  him Should  the  reader, 

however,  be  disposed  to  adopt  the  hypothesis  of  Calmet  without 
the  refinements  of  Eichhorn  and  his  followers,  this  will  not,  in 
the  smallest  degree,  detract  from  the  divine  authority  of  the 
book  of  Genesis."    (vol.  ii.,  p.  31,  first  edition.) 

He  also  makes  the  following  argument : 

"  Moreover,  that  the  Pentateuch  was  extant  in  the  time  of 
David,  is  evident  from  the  very  numerous  allusions  made  in  his 
psalms  to  its  contents ;  but  it  could  not  have  been  drawn  up  by 
him,  since  the  law  contained  in  the  Pentateuch  forbids  many 
practices  of  which  David  was  guilty."     (4th  edit.,  vol.  i.,  p.  54.) 

Little  did  he  anticipate  how  soon  the  arguments  from 
silence  and  from  violation  of  law  upon  which  he  relies, 
would  be  turned  against  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  and  prove  so  difficult  to  answer.  Little  did 
he  and  Bishop  Marsh  imagine  that  their  main  argument, 


THE  DOCUMENTARY   HYPOTHESIS  57 

"  the  observance  of  the  law  froui  the  conquest  til!  the  exile,'' 
would  prove  the  special  weakness  of  the  traditional 
theory. 

Home  refers  above  to  the  Roman  Catholic  divine,  Dr. 
Alex.  Geddes,  as  holding  the  view  of  Eichhorn  ;  but  in 
fact  Geddes  differs  radically  from  Eichhorn  and  his  school, 
and  is  the  real  father  of  a  variant  theory  of  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Pentateuch,  which  has  been  called  the  frag- 
mentary hypothesis.     Thus  Dr.  Geddes  says  :'^ 

"  It  has  been  well  observed  by  Michaelis  that  all  external  tes- 
timony here  is  of  little  avail ;  it  is  from  intrinsic  evidence  only 
that  we  must  derive  our  proofs.  Now,  from  intrinsic  evidence, 
three  things,  to  me,  seem  indubitable  :  (i)  The  Pentateuch  in  its 
present  form  was  not  written  by  Moses.  (2)  It  was  written  in 
the  land  of  Chanaan,  and  most  probably  at  Jerusalem.  (3)  It 
could  not  be  written  before  the  reign  of  David,  nor  after  that  of 
Hezekiah.  The  long  pacific  reign  of  Solomon  (the  Augustan 
age  of  Judea)  is  the  period  to  which  I  would  refer  it ;  yet  I  con- 
fess there  are  some  marks  of  a  posterior  date,  or  at  least  of 
posterior  interpolation.  But  although  I  am  inclined  to  believe 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  reduced  into  its  present  form  in  the 
reign  of  Solomon,  I  am  fully  persuaded  that  it  was  compiled 
from  ancient  documents,  some  of  which  were  coeval  with  Moses, 
and  some  even  anterior  to  Moses.  Whether  all  these  were  writ- 
ten records  or  many  of  them  only  oral  traditions,  it  would  be 
rash  to  determine."  Also  p.  xxi. :  "  To  the  Pentateuch  I  have 
joined  the  book  of  Joshua,  both  because  I  conceive  it  to  have 
been  compiled  by  the  same  author,  and  because  it  is  a  necessary 
appendix  to  the  history  contained  in  the  former  books." 

The  fragmentary  hypothesis  of  Geddes  v/as  introduced 
into  Germany  by  Vater.f     Vater's  view  is  that  the  Pen- 


*  The  Holy  Bible  ;  or,  The  Books  Accounted  Sacred  hy  Jews  and  Chris- 
tians, etc.,  faithfully  translated,  etc.     London,  1792,  vol.  i.,  p.  xviii. 

t  Commentar  iiber  den  Pentateuch  mit  Einleitungen  zu  den  einzelnen 
Ahschnitten,  der  eingeschalteteyt  Uhersetzung  von  Dr.  Alexander  Geddes's 
merkwilrdigeren  kritischen  und  exegetischen  Anmerkunge7t,e\.c.     Halle,  1805. 


58  THE  HEXATEUCH 

tateuch  and  Book  of  Joshua  are  composed  of  a  great 
number  of  separate  fragments  of  different  authors, 
loosely  joined  by  a  collector.*  He  puts  the  greater  part 
of  Deuteronomy  at  least  as  early  as  the  Davidic  age,  but 
the  composition  of  our  Pentateuch  toward  the  time  of 
the  exile. t  Calling  attention  to  the  discrepancies  in  the 
codes  of  legislation  and  the  non-observance  of  them  in 
the  history  of  Israel,  he  makes  the  important  statement: 

"  Still  in  later  times  we  find  the  most  important  laws  of  the 
Mosaic  constitution  either  unknown  or  at  least  unobserved,  so 
that  the  conclusion  may  be  drawn  therefrom  that  either  the 
Pentateuch  was  not  there,  or  at  least  not  yet  in  its  present  ex- 
tent the  book  of  religion  that  was  regarded  as  generally  obliga- 
tory, which  it  must  have  been  if  it  had  been  esteemed  as  such 
from  the  times  of  Moses."     III.,  p.  652. 

Vater  takes  the  first  alternative  of  the  non-existence 
of  the  books.  His  other  alternative  was  not  sufficiently 
considered  by  himself  or  by  others.  The  fragmentary 
hypothesis  was  also  advocated  by  A.  T.  Hartmann,:j: 
Von  Bohlen,§  and  others.  It  was  a  radical  and  destruc- 
tive theory,  that  called  forth  the  determined  opposition 
of  all  earnest  men,  and  it  was  soon  overthrown. 

Comparing  this  fragmentary  hypothesis  of  Geddes  and 
others  with  the  documentary  hypothesis  of  Eichhorn's 
school  and  the  Rabbinical  view  as  advocated  by  Marsh 
and  Home,  we  remark  that  the  documentary  hypothesis 
of  the  school  of  Eichhorn,  notwithstanding  serious  de- 
fects, is  in  the  midst  of  two  extremes.  It  gave  the  best 
solution  of  the  facts  that  had  been  discovered  in  those 
times.     The  documentary  hypothesis  found  representa- 


*iii.,p.  .S04.  till.,  p.  680. 

X  Historischkrit.  Foischiaigen^  1831. 

§  Die  Genesis  historiach-krit.  erldutert,  1835. 


THE  DOCUMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  59 

tion  in  Great  Britain  and  America  in  Taylor's  edition  of 
Calmet's  Dictionary  of  the  Holy  Bible,*  and  in  the 
American  edition  by  Edward  Robinson  in  1835.  Tay- 
lor's statement,  as  revised  by  Robinson,  is  the  following  : 

"  It  may  be  admitted,  for  instance,  (i)  that  the  Book  of  Gene- 
sis contains  various  repetitions  or  double  narratives  of  the  same 
early  events  ;  (2)  that  these  duplicate  narratives,when  closely  com- 
pared, present  characteristic  differences  of  style  ;  (3)  that  these 
differences  are  too  considerable  and  too  distinct  to  admit  of  any 
other  explanation  than  that  of  different  originals,  taken  into 
association." 


*  Edition  of  1832. 


VI. 


THE   SUPPLEMENTARY   HYPOTHESIS. 

This  stadium  is  characterized  by  the  effort  to  deter- 
mine the  genesis  of  the  various  documents  constituting 
the  Pentateuch.  De  Wette  is  the  man  who  chiefly  influ- 
ences the  discussion. "^ 

Reviewing  the  previous  stadium  Merx  properly  re- 
marks that  both  the  fragmentary  and  documentary 
hypotheses 

— "  have  this  in  common  that  they  seek  to  attain  their  aim 
chiefly  by  the  way  of  Literary  Criticism,  and  neglect  or  use  only 
as  a  subsidiary  help,  the  realistic,  antiquarian  and  historical  crit- 
icism of  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  element  De 
Wette  chiefly  brought  into  the  scientific  investigation  in  his 
Kriiik  der  israelitischcn  Geschichte,  Halle,  1807." — P.  Ixxxii.  of  2d 
Aufl.  of  Tuch's  Com.  iibcr  Genesis,  Halle,  1871. 

At  first  hovering  between  the  documentary  hypothe- 
sis of  Eichhorn  and  the  fragmentary  hypothesis  of 
Geddes,  recognizing  the  features  of  truth  and  of  error 
in  them  both,  De  Wette  at  last  rises  above  them  and 
presses  for  the  unity  of  the  Pentateuch  in   its   present 


*  For  an  excellent  account  of  the  criticism  of  this  stadium  see  the  valuable 
articles  of  Prof.  F.  A,  Gast,   D.D.,  on  Pentateuch  Criticism,  in  the  April  and 
July  Numbers  of  the  Reforvicd  Quarterly  Rpvierv,   1882 ;  also   Nachivort,  by 
Merx  in  2d  AuH.  of  Tuch's  Genesis,  1S71,  p.  Ixxviii.  sq.,  etc. 
(60) 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  Ql 

form  as  t\\G  J)/d/i  of  one  mind.  lie  first  stated  that  Deu- 
teronomy is  an  independent  part  of  the  Pentateuch, 
composed  in  the  age  of  Josiah.'^  He  subsequently 
adopted  into  his  system  the  improvements  suggested  by 
other  BibHcal  scholars  who  followed  in  his  footsteps.f 

In  1824  Bleekij:  adopted  the  view  of  Geddes  and  Vatcr, 
that  the  death  of  Moses  was  not  the  proper  close  of  the 
history  begun  in  Genesis,  but  that  it  aimed  at  the  occu- 
pation of  the  Holy  Land,  and  that  the  Book  of  Joshua 
therefore  belonged  with  the  Pentateuch,  so  that  these 
should  rather  be  considered  as  a  Hexateuch.  Bleek  v/as 
the  first  to  give  shape  to  what  has  been  called  the  siipplc- 
vieiitary  hypothesis.  He  made  the  Elohist  original  and 
fundamental,  the  Jahvist  the  supplementer.  Bleek  also 
advanced  in  his  position  by  subsequent  investigations  of 
himself  and  others.  His  final  statement  is  presented  in 
his  posthumous  Lectures  on  Introduction,  i86o.§ 

In  1823  Ewald  ||  also  insisted  upon  the  unity  of  Gene- 
sis over  against  the  fragmentary  h}'pothesis,  and  in 
1831,^  showed  that  the  Elohistic  and  Jalivistic  docu- 
ments extended  through  the  entire  PentateueJi.  Soon 
after,  the  same  was  found  to  be  the  case  with  Joshua, 
and  the  unity  of  the  Hexateuch  in  the  midst  of  the 
diversity  of  documents  was  made  manifest. 

Over  against  these  critical  investigations  the  tradi- 
tional theory  was  advocated  by  Ranke,*"^  who  sharply 
and   successfully  attacked  the  fragmentary  hypothesis, 


*  1805,  Dissert,  zur  Deut.  ;  1806-7,  Beitr.  zur  Eniletf.  ;  181 7,  LeJirb.  d.  Mst.- 
krit .  Einleitiing.     2d  edition,  trans,  by  Theo.  Parker,  Boston,  1843. 
t  6th  Aufl.  Emleit.  1844.     7th,  1852. 
X  Rosenm.,  Bib.  Exeget.  Rcpert.  J. 

§  The  2d  edition  was  translated  into  En3:Hsh  by  G.  H.  Venables,  1865. 
[  Composition  der  Genesis^  1823. 

T]  Stud,  und  Krit.  in  a  review  of  Stahelin  on  Genesis,  602  sq. 
**  Untersuchimgen^  1834-40. 


Q2  THE  HEXATEUCH 

but  did  not  squarely  meet  the  position  of  the  school  of 
De  Wette.  Hengstenberg '^  made  war  upon  the  dis- 
tinction of  documents  and  sought  to  efface  the  differ- 
ences by  his  theory  of  an  intentional  change  of  the 
divine  names  in  accordance  with  their  essential  meaning 
and  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Kurtz  also  f  took  a 
similar  position,  which,  however,  he  subsequently  aban- 
doned.ij:  Drechsler§  also  sharply  attacked  the  methods 
of  the  Higher  Criticism.  But  the  ablest  work  on  the 
scholastic  side  was  produced  by  Havernick.||  Havernick 
sturdily  maintained  the  Rabbinical  view  after  Carpzov 
and  Heidegger,  and  declined  to  make  concessions  as  to 
variety  of  documents  in  the  Pentateuch.  This  revival 
of  traditional  views  was  very  strong,  and  powerful  efforts 
were  put  forth  to  overcome  the  advancing  critics,  but  in 
vain,  for  it  died  away  essentially  with  these  distin- 
guished champions.  Kurtz  soon  went  over  to  an  inter- 
mediate position.  Keil,  in  1854,  took  up  the  work  of 
Havernick,  but  without  any  appreciable  effect  upon  the 
discussion  so  far  as  Germany  is  concerned.  In  1866  it 
was  the  author's  privilege  to  study  with  Hengsten- 
berg  in  the  University  of  Berlin.  His  studies  were  at 
first  chiefly  on  the  traditional  side.  He  can  say  that  he 
worked  over  the  chief  authorities  on  that  side,  and  they 
had  all  the  advantages  of  his  predilections  in  their 
favor.  But  Hengstenberg  himself  convinced  him  in  his 
own  lecture-room  that  hewas  defending  a  lost  cause.  He 
then  turned  away  from  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch  and 


^  Beitrage  zur  Einleitung  i7is  Alte   Testament :  B6.  ii.-iii..  Die  Authentic 
des  Pentaleuchs^  1836-39. 

t  Beitidge,  1844,  ^"d  Einheit  e'er  Genesis,  1846. 

X  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  Bundes,  1848,  -d  Ed.  1864. 

§  Ujtwissenschaft.  d.  K'ritik,  1837. 

I  Ilist.-krit.  Einlcit.,   1836.     (ste  Aufl.  by  Keil,  1854). 


THE   SUPPLEMENTAKY    ITYPOTITESIS  ^^ 

the  Historical  books  and  devoted  himself  to  the  study  of 
the  Poetical  and  Prophetical  books,  under  the  guidance 
of  Roediger,  and  it  was  not  until  his  fourth  year  in  Ger- 
many that  he  returned  to  the  study  of  the  Pentateuch, 
and  then  worked  under  the  guidance  chiefly  of  Ewald. 
His  experience  corresponds  with  that  of  many  other  stu- 
dents of  his  time.  We  yielded  against  our  wishes  to  in- 
superable arguments,  and  when  compelled  to  adopt  the 
analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  reserved  our  decision  on  the 
date  of  the  documents  until  these  could  be  definitely 
determined.  Hengstenberg  was  the  last  great  champion 
of  traditionalism  in  the  Old  Testament.  His  successor, 
August  Dillmann,  a  pupil  of  Ewald,  has  been  the  most 
painstaking  critic  of  our  times.  Hermann  Strack  said  in 
18S2  :*  "  Keilis  now  about  the  only  prominent  Old  Testa- 
ment scholar  who  holds  to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
entire  Pentateuch."  Keil  died  soon  afterwards,  and 
with  him  scholarly' opposition  ceased  in  Germany. 

A  more  careful  analysis  of  Genesis  was  undertaken 
by  Tuch,t  arnd  this  was  extended  by  Stahelin  to  the 
entire  Pentateuch.;]:  Hupfeld  §  took  up  the  analysis 
of  Genesis,  and,  unaware  of  the  work  of  Ilgen,  came 
independently  to  essentially  the  same  results,  only  that 
in  his  exceedingly  careful  discrimination  of  the  various 
documents  he  made  it  clear  that  there  were  Elohist,  2d 
Elohist,  Jahvist,  and  Redactor;  the  Redactor,  differing 
from  the  other  three,  in  that  he  is  distinguished  for  the 
conscientiousness  with  which  he  reproduces  the  ancient 
documents,  word  for  word,  and  the  skill  with  which  he 
combines  them  in  the  unity  and  order  which  characterize 


*  Handb.  d.  TJieol.  IVtssensc/i.,  1882,  I.  t  Co7nm.  ii.  d.  Genesis,  1838. 

X  Krit.  Unters.  iJi  Genesis,  1830,     K'rit.  Utiters..  1843.     Specielle  Einleit. 
1862. 
§  Quellen  d.  Genesis,  1853. 


64 


THE   HEXATEUCH 


his  work.  This  was  a  very  great  gain.  Knobel*  ana- 
lyzed the  Hexateuch  and  made  the  Elohist  the  funda- 
mental writing,  and  found  two  other  documents  used 
by  the  Jahvistic  supplementer,  and  combined  with  it. 
Ewald  f  gave  a  new  turn  to  the  question  by  taking 
the  Elohistic  document  as  the  Book  of  Origins.  This 
gathered  into  itself  three  older  writings  in  part :  the 
book  of  the  wars  of  Yahweh,  a  biography  of  Moses, 
and  the  book  of  the  Covenants,  having  the  design  to 
trace  the  history  from  the  creation  of  the  world  until 
the  erection  of  the  temple  of  Solomon.  It  was  com- 
posed in  the  first  third  of  the  reign  of  Solomon.  The 
second  Elohist  is  the  third  narrator,  in  the  age  of  Elijah 
and  Joel.  The  Jahvist  is  the  fourth  narrator,  in  the 
eighth  century.  The  Redactor  is  the  fifth  narrator, 
who  worked  up  the  entire  Hexateuch  except  Lev. 
xxvi.  3-45,  Deut.  i.  I — xxii.  47,  xxxiv.  iT-12,  and 
xxxiii.,  which  were  three  separate  writings  subsequently 
united  with  it.  The  Deuteronomist  wrote  his  work  in 
the  second  half  of  the  reign  of  Manasseh.  The  last 
work  upon  the  Pentateuch  was  done  by  the  author  of 
Deut.  xxxiii.  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
Thus  our  Pentateuch,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  gradu- 
ally grew  into  its  present  form.:}: 

It  became  more  and  more  evident  that  the  problem 
was  to  determine  the  work  of  the  Redactor.  E. 
Bohmer§  followed  Hupfeld  and  sought  to  define  more 


*  Comm.  Gen.,  1852,  {■zte  Atifl.,  i860).     Exod.  und  Levit.,  1857.     Krit.  des 
Pent,  ujid  Josh.,  1861. 
+  Gesch.des  Volkes  Israel,  1843-52.  2  Bde.3te  Ausg.  7  Bde.,  1864-68,  Bd.  I., 

P-  94/- 

X  We  cannot  pause  to  give  the  reasons  of  Ewald  for  his  positions  or  to  criticise 
them.  We  may  remark  that  his  positions  are  carefully  taken  and  justified  by 
plausible  evidences.  We  will  consider  the  most  important  of  them  in  our 
criticism  of  the  theories  of  this  stadium  as  a  whole. 

§  Liber  Genesis  Pent.,  i860,  Das  erste  Buck  d.  Torah,  1862. 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  ^5 

exactly  the  Redactor's  part.  Noldeke  '^'  examined  the 
Elohist  with  the  utmost  exactness,  and  represented  it  as 
a  systematic  work  by  itself,  to  a  very  large  extent  pre- 
served in  the  Pentateuch.  He  held  that  it  was  written 
by  a  priest  at  Jerusalem  in  the  ninth  or  tenth  century 
B.C.  Other  materials  were  used  by  the  Jehovist,  es- 
pecially the  work  of  the  second  Elohist,  from  about  the 
same  time  as  the  first  Elohist.  The  Redactor,  about 
800  B.C.,  united  the  two  together.  In  the  reign  of 
Josiah,  the  Deuteronomist  added  his  book  and  worked 
over  Joshua  and  gave  the  Pentateuch  its  present  form. 

Schrader  f  introduced  the  more  recent  investigations 
into  the  scheme  of  De  Wette,  and  combined  the  docu- 
mentary and  supplementary  hypotheses  as  follows : 
There  are  two  chief  documents  :  the  Annalistic  (Elohist) 
and  Theocratic  (2d  Elohist),  composed,  the  former  in 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  reign  of  David,  the  author  a 
priest  who  used  earlier  written  sources ;  the  latter  soon 
after  the  division  of  the  kingdom  in  the  northern  realm, 
975-950  B.C.,  also  using  ancient  documents.  The  third 
prophetic  narrator  (Jehovist)  combined  the  two,  freely 
appropriating,  and  rejecting,  and  enlarging  by  numerous 
additions,  making  a  complete  and  harmonious  work,  in 
the  reign  of  Jeroboam  IL,  825-800  B.C.,  in  the  northern 
kingdom.  The  Deuteronomist  in  the  prophetic  spirit 
composed  the  law  of  Moses  contained  in  Deuteron- 
omy, and  became  the  final  redactor  of  the  Pentateuch 
in  its  present  form,  immediately  before  the  reform  of 
Josiah,  622  B.C.,  being  a  man  closely  associated  with 
the  prophet  Jeremiah.  Schrader  briefly  and  clearly 
sums   up  the  various   characteristic  differences   in  the 


*  Antesf.  Lit.,  i868,  Untersuc/i.,  1869. 
t  8th  edition  of  De  Wette's  Einleit.,  1869. 


QCy  THE   HEXATEUCH  - 

documents:  (i)  a  thoroughgoing  differc-nce  of  language ; 
(2)  a  striking  difference  in  style ;  (3)  difference  in  re- 
ligious conceptions ;  (4)  discrepancy  in  historical  state- 
ments;  (5)  difference  of  plan  and  method  of  narration. 
The  supplementary  hypothesis  passed  over  into  Eng- 
land through  Samuel  Davidson."^  Davidson  places  the 
Elohist,  a  Levite  in  Judah,  in  the  time  of  Saul ;  the  2d 
Elohist  in  the  time  of  Elisha,  880  B.C. ;  the  Jehovist  in 
the  reign  of  Uzziah.  These  three  were  combined  by  a 
Redactor,  ^'  with  considerable  independence,  adding  oc- 
casionally a  connecting  link,  omitting  what  seemed  to 
stand  in  the  way  of  the  connection,  abridging  in  dif- 
ferent modes,  and  transposing  pieces  according  to  his 
own  view."  f  The  date  of  the  completion  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch coincides  with  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy 
in  the  reign  of  Manasseh,  whose  author  is  also  respon- 
sible for  the  present  form  of  Joshua.:]:  Dr.  Perowne  also 
adopted  it  in  a  mediating  way;§  Dean  Stanley  unre- 
servedly,! and  others  in  various  forms. 


*  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testarnent,  1862. 

t  P.  51-  X  Pp-  131  and  421. 

§  "  So  far  then  the  direct  evidence  from  the  Pentateuch  itself  is  not  sufficient 
to  establish  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  every  portion  of  the  five  books.  Certain 
parts  of  Ex.,  Lev.,  and  Numbers,  and  the  whole  of  Deut.  to  the  end  of  chap. 
XXX.,  is  all  that  is  expressly  said  to  have  been  written  by  Moses."  "  There  is, 
therefore,  it  seems,  good  ground  for  concluding  that,  besides  some  smaller  mde- 
pendent  documents,  traces  may  be  discovered  of  two  original  historical  works 
which  form  the  basis  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  and  of  the  earlier  chapters  of  Ex- 
odus, Of  these  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Elohistic  is  the  earlier."  "On 
carefully  weighing  all  the  evidence  hitherto  adduced,  we  can  hardly  question 
without  a  literary  scepticism  which  would  be  most  unreasonable,  that  the  Penta- 
teuch is,  to  a  very  large  extent,  as  early  as  the  time  of  Moses,  though  it  may 
have  undergone  many  later  revisions  and  corrections,  the  last  of  these  being  cer- 
tainly as  late  as  the  time  of  Ezra.  But  as  regards  any  direct  and  unimpeachable 
testimony  to  the  composition  of  the  whole  work  by  Moses,  we  have  it  not." — 
Smith's  Dictionary  of  the  Bible^  article,  Pentateuch,  1863. 

II  Lectures  on  the  History  0/  the  Jewish  Churchy  Part  II.,  p.  648.  N.  Y., 
1869. 


THE  SUPPLEMENTARY  HYPOTHESIS  ^7 

Dclitzsch,  Kurtz,  and  Kleinert,  in  Germany,  also  strove 
to  mediate.  Delitzsch*  held  that  the  legislation  of  Ex- 
odus, Leviticus,  and  Numbers  was  Mosaic  legislation, 
but  the  codification  of  the  various  laws  was  made  by  a 
man  like  Eleazar,  in  the  Holy  Land  after  the  conquest, 
who  became  the  author  of  the  Elohistic  document. 
Joshua,  or  one  of  the  elders,  supplemented  this  work  as 
the  Jehovist,  taking  Moses'  Book  of  Deuteronomy  and 
incorporating  it  with  the  rest.  Kurtz  f  abandoned  his 
previous  defence  of  the  traditional  theory,  and  took  the 
ground  that  the  two  streams  of  history  in  the  Penta- 
teuch must  be  distinguished.  He  agreed  with  Delitzsch 
in  the  main,  save  that  he  put  the  codification  of  the 
various  laws  of  the  middle  books  by  a  man  like  Eleazar 
in  the  land  of  Moab.  Kleinert  :j:  maintained  that  the 
codification  of  the  Deuteronomic  law  took  place  in  the 
time  of  Samuel,§  and  that  it  was  set  in  its  historical  rim 
with  the  other  discourses  and  songs  by  Samuel,  the  great 
reformer.!  The  redaction  of  our  Pentateuch  was  placed 
in  the  time  of  Hezekiah.*|f  Lange  "^^  also  took  a  medi- 
ating position. 

In  a  critical  examination  of  the  supplementary  hypoth- 
esis we  must  distinguish  between  the  theory  and  the 
facts  upon  which  it  is  grounded.  We  should  not  allow 
ourselves  to  be  influenced  by  the  circumstance  that  many 
of  the  scholars  who  have  been  engaged  in  these  re- 
searches have  been  rationalistic  or  semi-rationalistic  in 
their  religious  opinions;  and  that  they  have  employed 


*  Comrn.  on  Genesis,  1852.     3d  edit.,  i860.     4lh  ed.,  1872. 
t  Gesch.  des  Alien  Bundes,  i855i  Bd.  Hi.,  p.  554. 
X  Deuteronomium  und  tier  Deuteronomiker^  1872. 
§  P.  153.  I  P-  242.  II  P.  247. 

**  Commentary  on  Genesis.    American  4th  edition,  1870,  p.  98.    Commentary 
071  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  1876,  p.  7.0. 


gg  THE  IlEXATEUCH 

the  methods  and  styles  pecuHar  to  the  German  scholar- 
ship of  our  century.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  mo- 
tives and  influences  that  led  to  these  investigations,  the 
questions  we  have  to  determine  are:  (i)  What  are  the 
facts  of  the  case  ?  and  (2)  do  the  theories  account  for  the 
facts  ? 

(i).  Looking  at  the  facts  of  the  case  we  note  that  the 
careful  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch  by  so  large  a  number 
of  the  ablest  Biblical  scholars  of  the  age  has  brought 
about  general  agreement  as  to  the  following  points : 

(<?)  An  Elohistic  writing  extending  through  the  Hex- 
ateuch, written  by  a  priestly  writer,  commonly  therefore 
designated  by  P.  (d)  A  Jahvistic  writing,  also  extend- 
ing through  the  Hexateuch,  dcsig.iated  by  J.  (c)  A 
second  Elohistic  writing  in  close  connection  with  the 
Jahvist,  designated  by  E.  (d)  The  Deuteronomic  writ- 
ing, chiefly  in  Deuteronomy  and  Joshua,  with  a  few 
traces  in  the  earlier  books,  designated  by  D.  (e)  These 
writings  have  been  compacted  by  redactors  who  first 
combined  J  with  E,  then  JE  with  D,  and  at  last  JED 
with  P.  Notwithstanding  the  careful  way  in  which  these 
documents  have  been  compacted  into  a  higher  unity  by 
these  successive  editings,  the  documents  may  be  distin- 
guished by  characteristic  differences,  not  only  in  the  use 
of  the  divine  names,  but  also  in  language  and  style  ;  in 
religious,  doctrinal  and  moral  conceptions ;  in  various 
interpretations  of  the  same  historic  persons  and  events, 
and  in  their  plans  and  methods  of  composition  ;  dif- 
ferences which  are  no  less  striking  than  those  which 
characterize  the  four  Gospels. 


VIL 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH. 

I 
I 

!  We  shall  pause  at  this  stage  of  the  historical  develop- 

I  ment  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  in  order 

i  to  present  some  of  the  arguments  for  the  differences  of 

documents.     We  would  refer  to  the  valuable  work  of 
I  Prof.  Kautzsch,  of  Halle,  who  presents  all  these  docu- 

ments and  the  work  of  the  several  editors,  so  far  as  they 
can  be  determined,  by  differences  of  type  throughout  the 
I  Hexateuch.* 


I. —  The  Argument  from  Language. 

The  argument  from  language  may  be  found  in  the  de- 
tailed examination  of  the  whole  Hexateuch  in  the  com- 
mentaries of  Professor  Dillmann  of  the  University  of  Ber- 
lin ;t  and  in  the  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old 
Testament,  recently  published  by  Canon  Driver,  Regius 
Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Oxford,  in  the  hiternational 
Theological  Library.  Canon  Driver  gives  a  list  of  41 
characteristic  phrases  of  D;  50  characteristic  phrases  of 
P ;  and  20  characteristic  phrases  of  H,  the  code  of  holi- 


*  Die  Heilige  Schri/t  des  Alten  Tcsiavimts.  Erstcr  Halbband,  Freiburg, 
1892. 

t  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches  Hanc'buch  zum  Alten  Testatnenf,  Die  Ganens, 
5te  Aufl.,  18S6.  Die  Biic/ier  Exodus  uiid  Leviticus,  2te  Aufl.,  1880,  Die Bilcher 
Xumeri,  Deuteroriomium  und  Jo'iua,  2te  Aufl.,  1SS6. 

(69) 


70  THE   HEXATEUCH 

ness  which  was  eventually  taken  up  into  P,  but  for  the 
most  part  remaining  apart  in  the  middle  chapters  of 
Leviticus.  In  the  exhaustive  word-study,  necessary  to 
the  preparation  of  the  new  Hebrew  Lexicon,  evidence 
of  this  kind  is  constantly  disclosing  itself.  It  is  im- 
practicable to  use  such  a  vast  amount  of  evidence  in 
this  volume.  It  will  sufifice  to  give  a  nurnber  of  speci- 
mens of  the  usage  of  J  E,  and  a  few  of  the  usage  of 
the  other  documents.  In  the  Appendix  the  word 
lists  of  Driver  may  be  seen,  showing  the  characteristics 
of  D,  H,  and  P."^ 

(i).  The  month  Abib  is  used  in  JED,  Ex.  xiii.  4, 
xxiii.  15,  xxxiv.  18,  18;  Dt.  xvi.  i,  i  ; — but  not  in  P, 
which  uses  instead  ''  tJie  first  viontJi,''  Ex.  xii.  2,  18,  xl. 
2,  17;  Lev.  xxiii.  5  ;  Nu.  ix.  i,  xxviii.  16,  xxxiii.  3  ;  for 
which  Nisan  in  Ne.  ii.  i,  Est.  iii.  7. 

(2).  n?2TiS5  is  a  characteristic  word  of  J,  used  very 
often  for  the  ground  as  tilled  and  yielding  sustenance, 
as  landed  property,  as  material  substance  out  of  which  ^^^^ 
things  are  made  ;  as  territory,  arid  of  the  earth  as  inhab-  /^-r 
ited.  In  these  senses  it  is  used  less  frequently  by  E  D  ; 
but  never  by  P,  who  uses  yn^  instead.  P  uses  n)3^^i5 
only  four  times,  and  in  these  passages  of  the  earth's 
visible  surface,  Gn.  i.  25,  vi.  20  ;  Lev.  xx.  25  ;  Nu.xvi.  30. 

(3)-  bpS^  food  is  used  by  JED,  and  by  P  in  Lev. 
xi.  34,  XXV.  37,  but  nb^N^  is  used  only  by  P  and  Ezekiel.    i^,\v3^ 

(4)-  ^)2^^  handmaid  is  used  in  E  16  t,  H  3  t,  D  8  tj  for^'^,,^''aJ^ 
which  nn^p  is  used  by  J  and  P.     :.     ^     •    ':  5"-^^  \\x>^ 

(5)-  nD?2^  and  CD^i^  verily  are  used  by  J  E,  for 
which  D  and  Puse  ^^^^i^,  -.»-  \ —  ^-j  -;;    i^^^j^  27     -    -< 

(6).  Ainorite,  as  the  general  name  of  the  ancient  pop- 


■5^  See  Appendix  II. 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH        Yl 

ulation  of  both  West  and  East  Palestine,  is  used  by  E, 
Gn.  XV.  i6,  xlviii.  22;  Nu.  xxi.  21,  31  f.,  Jos.  xxiv.  8, 
12,  15,  18,  for  which  J  prefers  Canaanite,  Gn.  xii.  6,  xiii. 
7,  xxiv.  3,  37,  xxxiv.  30. 

(7).  The  first  personal  pronoun  -iDJJ^  is  used  in  D,  ex- 
cept twice;  in  J  E  by  preference  (■'D^i^  81  times,  "055< 
48  times),  due  in  large  measure  to  E,  which  prefers  it. 
But  the  shorter  form  ^^^s^  is  used  in  H  and  P  about  130 
times  (always  except  Gn.  xxiii.  4).  This  corresponds 
with  Ezekiel,  who  uses  it  138  times  and  ■>d5>^  only 
xxxvi.  28  ;  the  Chronicler,  who  uses  it  30  times  and 
"•DDi^  only  i  Ch.  xvii.  i  ;  and  Daniel,  who  uses  it  23  times 
and  ^D5i5  only  in  x.  11.  These  exceptions  are  doubtless 
due  to  scribal  error. 

(8).  lbs  '^vith  finite  verb  only  in  Gn.  xxxi.  20  (E). 

(9).   ^52  ozuneTy  Imsband,  lord,  and  as  noun  of  relation, 

and  Baal,  the  Canaanitish  god,  is  often  used  by  E  and 
D,  but  never  used  by  J  H  P. 

(10).  ^>'2  ^^  ^^  bruiisJi,  twice  in  E  and  ^'^'$^  brute,  5 
times  in  E,  not  elsewhere  in  Hexateuch. 

(i  i).  112)2  in  the  meaning  of  body,  is  used  only  in  P  of 
the  Hexateuch,  elsewhere  in  Ecclesiastes,  and  in  Poetry. 

(12).  "iJ"!^  to  drive  out,  in  J  E  not  elsewhere  in  the 
Hexateuch. 

(13)-  i13^  ^l^T  speak  with,  in  P  19  times,  E  5  times,  D 
once,  in  J  never  used.  J  uses  instead  G3?  ^'2r\y  so  in  J  E 
II  times,  D  twice,  but  P  never  uses  it. 

(14).  flTT^T  likeness,  similitude,  is  used  in  P  and  Eze- 
kiel, elsewhere  in  the  Bible  only  in  the  exilic  Isaiah, 
xiii.  4,  xl.  18;  2  K.  xvi.  10;  2  Ch.  iv.  3;  Ps.  Iviii.  5; 
Dan.  X.  16. 


Y2  THE  HEXATEUCH 

(15).  -|-J-i'7  a  floiving,  liberty,  only  in    P   of   the  Hexa- 

teuch,  Ex.  XXX.  23  ;  Lv.  xxv.  10;  elsewhere  Jer.  xxxiv. 
8,  15,  17;  Is.  Ixi.   I  ;   Ez.  xlvi.  17. 

(16).  ntn  bcJiold,  is  only  in  E  in  the  Hexateuch  ;  else- 
where chiefly  in  Job,  Psalms,  and  Isaiah. 

(17)-  rii^ujn  sin,  Gn.  xx.  9  (E) ;  Ex.  xxxii.  21,  30,  31 
(J)  ;  elsewhere  only  2  Kings  xvii.  21  ;  Pss.  xxxii.  i  ;  xl. 
7,  cix.  7. 

(18).  "^n  li:P  Gn.  xxv.  6,  xliii.  7,  27,  28,  xlv.  28,  xlvi. 
30  (J);  Gn.  xlv.  3,  26;  Ex.  iv.  18  (E) ;  Dt.  xxxi.  27; — 
but  not  in  H  or  P  ;  elsewhere  only  i  Sam.  xx.  14;  2 
Sam.  xii.  22,  xviii.  14 ;   I  K.  xx.  32. 

(19).   ;-;*|i  cast,  throzv,  shoot,  only  in  JE  of  Hexateuch, 

Gn.  xxxi,  51;  Ex.  xv.  4,  xix.  13;  Nu.  xxi.  30;  Jos. 
xviii.  6;  but  as  Hiphil,  to  teach,  in  all  the  documents. 

(20.)  The  shorter  form  ^b  is  always  used  in  J  and  P, 
the  longer  form  J^^b  is  always  used  in  the  law  codes  of 
D  and  H.     In  E  the  usage  is  mixed. 

(21).  n^^'1^  hi  the  meaning,  vision,  in  the  Hexateuch 
only  in  E,  Gn.  xlvi.  2  ;  Nu.  xii.  6  ;  elsewhere  i  Sam.  iii. 
15  ;   Ez.  i.  I,  viii.  3,  xl.  2,  xliii.  3,  Dn.  x.  7-16. 

(22).  The  phrases  n^^.^lTO  ilS^r  Gn.  xii.  ii,xxix.  17  (J); 
2  Sam.  xiv.  27  ;  H^-l^oCn)  ^iS"],  Gn.  xii.  2,  4  ;  ni^"1)5  nS> 
Gn.  xxxix.  6,  i  Sam.  xvii.  42  ;  n&J:"i)2  ^iHit)'  Gn.  xxiv. 
16,  xxvi.  7  (J) ;  2  Sam.  xi.  2,  Est.  i.  11,  ii.  2,  3,  7; 
^^^^  ''5it3.  Dn.  i.  4;  Ti^yob  TOn>  Gn.  ii.  9  (J),  not 
found  elsewhere. 

(23).   nDJJ^b^  in  the  meaning,   business,  occupation,   is 

used  in  Gn.  xxxix.  11  (J);  in  the  meaning /r^/^r/j/,  Ex. 
xxii.   7,   10  (E),  Gn.  xxxiii.  14  (J);  but  in  the  sense  of 


THE   ANALYSIS  OF  THE   HEXATEUCIT  Y3 

work,  it  is  frequent  in  P  and  the  Chronicler;  elsewhere 
in  the  Hexateuch  only  in  the  reason  of  the  Fourth 
Commanclment,Ex.  XX.9,  io,  =  Dt.  v.  13,  14,  and  Dt.xvi.  8. 

(24).  n^rO  breath,  Gn.  ii.  7,  vii.  22  (J)  and  n>2':^D(n)'i)D 
every  breathing  thing,  T)t.  ^yi.  16;  Jos.  x.  40,  xi.  11,  14 
(all  D) ;  neither  elsewhere  in  the  Hexateuch. 

(25).  S^i^  serve,  3  times  in  P,  not  elsewhere  in  Hexa- 
teuch. 

^3!2  'i^^^y  13  times  in  P,  i^^^J  i^l^ji   15   times  in  P,   5 

T  T 

times  in  Chronicles ;  service,  P,  8  times;  elsewhere  in 
Hexateuch  only  Dt.  xxiv.  5,  Jos.  iv.  13  (D) ;  in  the 
meaning  ^r;;/j',  host,  47  times  \n  P,  23  times  in  Chroni- 
cler ;  elsewhere  in  Hexateuch,  Gn.  xxi.  22,  32  (E),  xxvi. 
26  (J),  Jos.  V.  14,  15  ;  of  heavenly  bodies,  twice  in  P; 
of  the  entire  creation,  Gn.  ii.  i  (P). 

(26).  ritD)3  tribe,  is  used  by  P  about  100  times:  J  uses 

tOit?  instead. 

(27).  J  uses  the  Qal  ^b"!  beget ;  but  P  uses  instead  the 
Hiphil  T^bin  60  times. 

(28).  The  Mount  of  the  Lawgiving  is  called  Horeb  in 
E  and  D,  but  Sinai  in  J  and  P. 

(29).  E  uses  a  large  number  of  archaic  words  such  as 
Tjip  Nu.  XX.  21  for  JipJn  ;  vi^3?  Gn.  xxxi.  28,  nb^  Gn. 

1.  20,  :)ni2J3/  Ex.  xviii.  18  for  nitTi?,  inb^?  I  tjbn  Ex. 

iii.  19,  Nu.   xxii.  13,    16,   for  tiDb  5  m*l  Gn.  xlvi.   3    for 

trr\ ;  n:?;!  Ex.  ii.  4  for  n?i- 

These  are  only  specimens  of  a  vast  array  of  words. 
Many  others  will  appear  when  we  come  to  the  argu- 
ment from  Religion  and  Doctrine.* 


*  See  pp.  loi  seq.^  149  seq. 


Y4  THE  HEXATEUCH 

Each  of  the  four  writers  has  his  favorite  words  and 
phrases.  They  all  use  essentially  the  same  vocabulary, 
because  they  use  the  same  language  and  the  same  dia- 
lect, with  the  exception  of  E,  who  shows  traces  of  an  oc- 
casional use  of  the  Ephraimitic  dialect;  but  there  are 
certain  terms  and  phrases  which  are  characteristic  of 
each.  Dr.  Green,  in  his  recent  book  on  the  Hebrew 
Feasts,  misrepresents  this  line  of  argument.  Rethinks 
that  he  has  disproved  the  difference  of  style  between 
the  several  authors  compacted  in  Ex.  xii.-xiii.,  by  point- 
ing to  an  occasional  use  of  the  favorite  words  of  one  au- 
thor by  another  author.  But  this  is  an  avoidance  of 
the  question  at  issue.  Those  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
using  the  methods  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  whether  in 
the  study  of  the  classics,  of  the  Vedas,  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical writers,  or  of  Shakespeare,  know  very  well  that  there 
is  an  ascending  scale  in  the  use  of  words  and  phrases 
when  we  compare  author  with  author  in  any  language, 
(i).  The  great  majority  of  words  and  phrases  are  the 
common  stock  of  the  language  used  by  all.  (2).  The 
same  theme  leads  to  the  use  of  similar  words  and 
phrases.  (3).  Differences  begin  in  the  percentage  of  use 
of  certain  words  and  phrases.  That  which  is  occasional 
with  one  wTiter  is  common  with  another,  and  the  re- 
verse. (4).  There  are  a  few  words  and  expressions  which 
are  peculiar  to  certain  authors,  used  by  one  author  and 
avoided  by  other  authors. 

II. — Difference  of  Style. 

It  is  agreed  among  critics  that  E  is  brief,  terse,  and  ar- 
chaic in  his  style.  J  is  poetic  and  descriptive — as  Well- 
hausen  says,  ''the  best  narrator  in  the  Bible."  His 
imagination  and  fancy  are  ever  active.  P  is  annalis- 
tic  and  diffuse — fond  of  names  and   dates.     He  aims  at 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  IIEXATEUCH  ^5 

precision  and  completeness.  The  logical  faculty  prevails. 
There  is  little  color.  D  is  rhetorical  and  hortatory, 
practical  and  earnest.  His  aim  is  instruction  and  guid- 
ance. This  difference  of  style  was  noted  by  Simon,  and 
has  been  carefully  traced  by  criticism  in  our  day.  There 
are  those  who  try  to  explain  away  this  difference  as  oc- 
casioned by  the  difference  of  theme,  but  this  does  not 
account  for  the  difference  of  style  in  the  parallel  treat- 
ment of  the  same  theme.  And  then  the  differences  of 
style  are  alongside  of  the  differences  in  the  use  of  words 
and  phrases  and  the  divine  names.  There  is  as  great 
a  difference  in  style  between  the  different  documents  of 
the  Hexateuch  as  there  is  between  the  four  Gospels. 
Kautzsch  and  Socin  have  recently  presented  the  differ- 
ent documents  of  Genesis  in  different  kinds  of  type.* 
Bacon  has  exhibited  them  apart  by  themselves.f 

1 1 1 . — Parallel  Narratives. 

Another  line  of  evidence  is  the  very  large  number  of 
doublets  and   triplets,     (i).  There  are  two  accounts  of 
the  creation  which  have  recently  been  discovered  to  be  ^  }^:,^^ 
two  ancient  poems.     In  the  Pentameter  poem.  Gen.  \.^\,Z^^^^ 
God  creates  by  speaking.     He  is  conceived  as  a  com- '.";^^*" 
mander  of  an  army,  summoning  his  troops  into  the  field,  •    T, 
line  upon  line,  until  they  all  stand  before  him  for  review, 
an  organized  host.     In  the  Trimeter  poem,  Gn.  ii.,  there 
is  a  rapid  change  of  image.     God  uses  His  hands  in  cre- 
ation.    He  plants  the  garden  in   Eden  as  a  gardener. 
He  moulds  the  forms  of  men  and  animals  out  of  the  soil 
of  the  ground  like  a  sculptor.     He  builds  the  form  of  Eve 
from  a  piece  of  the  body  of  man  like  a  builder. 

In  the  Pentameter  poem  the  divine  Spirit  is  conceived 


*  Die  Genesis  viit  ausserer  Unterscheidung  der  Quellenschri/ten^  1888. 
t  The  Genesis  cf  Genesis^  1891. 


Y6 


THE   HEXATEUCH 


as  a  bird  hovering  over  the  original  chaos  with  creative 
energy.  In  the  Trimeter  poem  God's  breath,  proceeding 
from  the  divine  nostrils  into  the  nostrils  of  the  creatures, 
imparts  the  breath  of  life. 

In  the  Pentameter  poem  a  w^aste,  an  empty  abyss,  is 
conceived  as  prior  to  the  first  creative  word,  and  light 
appears  as  the  first  of  God's  creations  to  fill  this  abyss 
with  illumination.  In  the  Trimeter  poem  a  rainless 
ground  without  vegetable  and  animal  life  is  conceived  as 
prior  to  the  first  divine  activity  which  was  forming  a 
single  man,  Adam.  The  order  of  creation  is  different. 
In  the  Pentameter  poem  six  orders  of  creation  appear 
instantaneously  in  obedience  to  the  creative  word  on  the 
mornings  of  six  creative  days:  (i).  Light,  (2).  Ex- 
panse, (3).  Dry  land  and  vegetables,  (4).  The  great 
luminaries,  (5).  Animals  of  water  and  air,  (6).  Land 
animals  and  mankind. 

In  the  Trimeter  poem,  the  ground  is  conceived  as  al- 
ready  existing,    the   great    luminaries   are    left    out   of 
consideration,  and  the  order   is  (i).   Adam;   (2),  trees; 
(3),  animals ;   and  (4),  Eve.     The  result  of  the  divine 
inspection  differs  greatly  in    the  two   poems.     In  the 
Pentameter  poem,  as  each  order  appears,  it  is  recog- 
nized as  ^'  good  "  and  is  then  assigned  its  service.     The 
review  concludes  with  the  approbation,  "  very  excellent." 
In  the  Trimeter  poem,  which  proposes  to  give  the  origin 
and  development  of  sin,  we  notice  a  striking  antithesis 
to  the  ^'  good  "  and  "  very  good  "  of  the  six  days'  work. 
Thus  it   was  not   good   to  eat  of  the  prohibited  tree  of  ^,;..-*^  ^-'■^ 
knowledge  of  good  and  evil.     ''  It  was  not  good  thaLJhe^  t-^i("^ 
man  should  be  alone.  "    And  the  animals  were  not  good  -^^^^^^J,T*SC^ 
for  man.     "  But  for  man  there  was  not  found  an  help-  ■^'■'^•^-'^^tSSi) 
meet  for  him.  "     The  time  of  the  Pentameter  poem  was 
six  creative  days.     The  time  of  the  Trimeter  was  a  day. 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF   THE   IIEXATEUCH  77 

unless  we  conceive  that  ''day"  has  the  more  general 
sense  of  the  tune  when.  In  the  Pentameter,  mankind  was 
created  male  and  female,  a  species  alongside  of  the  spe- 
cies of  animals.  In  the  Trimeter,  first  a  man,  then  after 
the  trees  and  animals  a  woman,  and  a  plurality  of  men  and 
women  only  after  two  great  tragedies  of  sin.  When 
God  reviews  His  organized  host,  according  to  the  Pen- 
tameter poem.  He  looks  approvingly  on  mankind,  male 
and  female,  a  race  whom  He  had  just  created,  and  pro- 
nounces them  at  the  head  and  crown  of  all  His  creations, 
"very  excellent."  But  according  to  the  Trimeter  poem, 
God  looks  upon  mankind,  male  and  female,  as  a  race,  only 
as  very  evil,  after  Adam  and  Eve  have  sinned,  after  Cain 
has  killed  his  brother  Abel,  after  mankind  has  become  a 
race  in  the  Sethite  line  of  redemption  and  in  the  accursed 
line  of  Cain.  Add  to  these  material  facts,  this  additional 
one  that  the  verb  bard,  in  the  Pentameter  poem,  is  a  word 
seldom  used  except  in  P,  and  the  second  Isaiah  in  the  Qal 
species.  The  Trimeter  poem  uses  dsah  for  it  in  accord- 
ance with  the  usage  of  J  elsewhere,  and  of  all  the  earlier 
writers.  To  these  evidences  we  might  add  the  evi- 
dences from  vocabulary  and  style  which  may  be  found 
in  the  critical  commentaries.  How  any  one  can  look 
these  facts  in  the  face  and  say  that  these  two  accounts 
of  the  creation  came  from  one  and  the  same  writer, 
Moses,  it  is  difficult  to  understand. 

(2).  There  are  two  narratives  of  the  Deluge,  also  two 
poems  of  different  movements  skilfully  compacted  by 
the  redactor  from  J  and  P,  so  that  both  pieces  are 
preserved  almost  complete.  These  give  variant  accounts 
of  the  deluge  and  differ  in  style,  poetical  structure  and 
their  descriptions;  and  they  agree  in  geneial  in  vocabu- 
lary and  style  with  the  corresponding  poems  of  J  and  P 
relating  to  the  creation. 


'^g  THE   HEXATEUCH 

(3).  There  are  two  versions  of  the  Ten  Words,  the 
one  in  Deuteronomy,  the  other  in  Exodus,  with  import- 
ant differences.  The  version  in  Exodus  may  be  analyzed 
and  the  reasons  distributed  among  E,  J  and  P.  The 
version  in  Exodus  also  bears  traces  of  the  use  of  the 
Deuteronomic  version,  showing  that  it  is  the  latest 
and  fullest  version,  made  by  the  redactor  of  J,  E, 
D,  and  P,  from  the  versions  in  the  four  documents.  E 
calls  these  tables,  tables  of  stone;  J,  tables  of  stone; 
D,  tables  of  the  covenant ;  P,  tables  of  the  testimony.* 

(4).  E  and  J  give  three  stories  of  the  peril  of  the 
wives  of  the  patriarchs  at  the  courts  of  Pharaoh  and 
Abimelek :  Gen.  xii.  10-20  (J);  xx.  1-13  (E) ;  xxvi. 
6-1 1  (J).  These  stories,  apart  from  persons  and  places, 
are  so  alike  that  they  may  be,  two  of  them,  parallel 
accounts  of  what  transpired  at  the  court  of  Abimelek, 
the  one  story  referring  to  Isaac,  the  other  to  Abraham. 
And  it  may  be  that  the  story  of  Abraham  at  the  court 
of  Pharaoh  is  only  a  third  variation  of  the  same  story. 
With  similarity  of  theme,  there  are  characteristic  differ- 
ences in  the  language  and  style  of  the  different  narrators. 

(5).  Among  the  Egyptian  plagues  J  reports  a  mur- 
rain, a  cattle-pest  (Ex.  ix.  1-7).  This  seems  to  be 
a  parallel  plague  to  the  ''  boils  breaking  forth  with 
blains"  of  P  (Ex.  Ix.  8-12),  which  come  upon  man  and 
%  beast.  These  narratives  exhibit  the  characteristic  differ- 
ences of  these  two  narrators.f 

(6).  There  are  three  accounts  of  the  insect  pest.  The 
narratives  of  J  and  E  are  mingled  in  Ex.  viii.  16-28. 
P  stands  by  itself  in  Ex.  viii.  1 1^-15.  In  J  E  this  pest 
is  ^^^,  a  swarm  of  insects.  In  P  it  is  tSD^  lice.  Psalm 
Ixxviii.  gives  the  insect  swarm  of  J,  but  omits  the  lice 
of  P,  but  Psalm  cv.  uses  both  of  these  terms. 

*  See  Appendix  III.  +  See  Appendix  IV. 


THE  ANALYSIS  OF  THE  HEXATEUCH        YQ 


(7).  There  are  several  versions  of  the  call  and  blessing 
of  Abraham  in  Gen.  xii.  1-3  (J);  xv.  4-5  (E)  ;  xvii. 
1-8  (P);  xxii.  15-18  (R),  which  show  the  distinctive 
characteristics  of  the  narrators. 

(8).  According  to  E,  Joshua  set  up  twelve  stones  in 
the  bed  of  the  Jordan  as  a  memorial  of  the  crossing. 
(Jos.  iv.  7^,  9).  According  to  J,  the  stones  from  the  bed 
of  the  Jordan  were  set  up  at  GilgaL     (Jos.  iv.  20.) 

(9).  The  rebellion  of  Dathan  and  Abiram,  the  Reuben- 
ites,  is  referred  to  in  Dt.  xi.  6.  But  no  mention  is  made 
of  the  rebellion  of  the  Levitical  Korahitcs.  These  two 
rebellions  are  combined  in  the  narrative  Num.  xvi. 
Critical  analysis,  however,  shows  that  the  redactor  has 
here  combined  a  narrative  of  J  E,  which  gives  the  rebel- 
lion of  the  Reubenites  and  is  the  basis  of  the  story  of 
D,  with  a  narrative  of  P,  which  gives  the  story  of  the 
Korahites,  which  is  unknown  to  J  E,  and  therefore 
to  D. 

(10).  There  are  two  reports  of  the  bringing  of  the  water 
from  the  rock.  The  one,  Ex.  xvii.,  is  in  the  wilderness 
of  Sin,  early  in  the  wanderings ;  the  other.  Num.  xx.,  is 
in  the  wilderness  of  Zin,  forty  years  after.  The  former 
is  in  the  narrative  of  J  E,  the  latter  in  the  narrative  of 
P.  The  question  thus  arises  whether  these  are  not  va- 
riant accounts  of  the  same  miracle,  occasioned  by  an 
unconscious  mistake  of  Sin  for  Zin.  This  is  a  case  very 
much  like  the  two  stories  of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple 
by  Jesus,  the  one  in  the  synoptists  at  the  last  passover 
of  Jesus,  the  other  in  the  Gospel  of  John  at  the  first 
passover.  There  is  room  for  difference  of  opinion  re- 
garding both  of  these  events;  but  whether  they  are 
different  events  or  not,  the  stories  being  about  the  same 
essential  thing,  the  differences  between  J  E  and  P,  in 
the  report  of  the  water  from  the  rock,  are  just  as  great 


gQ  THE  UEXATEUCH 

as  those  between  John  and  the  synoptists  in  the  story 
of  the  cleansing  of  the  temple. 

Many  other  instances  might  be  given,  but  so  many 
are  reserved  for  the  discussion  of  the  development  of  the 
legislation  and  for  the  argument  as  to  the  date  of  the 
documents,  that  these  may  suf^ce  for  the  present. 


1 


VIII. 


THE   DATE   OF  DEUTERONOMY. 

Having  given  some  of  the  evidences  for  the  Analysis 
of  the  Documents  we  shall  now  consider  the  question  of 
the  date  of  Deuteronomy.  The  supplementary  hypothe- 
sis tried  to  determine  the  order  and  fix  the  time  of  the 
genesis  or  production  of  these  various  documents.  The 
pivot  of  the  whole  is  the  theory  of  De  Wette,  that  Deu- 
teronomy was  composed  shortly  before  the  reform  of 
Josiah.  This  theory  is  based  on  the  statements  of 
2  Kings  xxii.  3  f.,*  as  to  discovery  of  the  lost  law 
book.  The  arguments  in  support  of  this  theory,  as 
stated  by  the  late  Prof.  Riehm,  of  Halle,  are  as  follows : 

He  argues  (i)  that  Deuteronomy  was  not  written  until  0^  "-^ 
some  time  after  the  conquest,  by  the  expression  '^■" 
"within  thy  gates";  the  statement,  ii.  12,  "as  Israel  did 
unto  the  land  of  his  possession,  which  Yahweh  gave  unto 
them  ";  and  the  ancient  landmarks,  xix.  14.  The  first 
and  last  are  often  explained  from  the  prophetic  point  of 
view  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  which  looks  forward  to 
the  prolonged  occupation  of  the  Holy  Land  and  shapes 
the  legislation  accordingly.  The  middle  one  is  explained 
as  a  redactor's  note  of  explanation.     But  while  these 


See  p.  \sseq. 

(81) 


82  THE  BEXATEUCS 

explanations  might  satisfy  if  there  were  no  other  reasons 
against  Mosaic  authorship,  they  more  naturally  indicate 
a  long  occupation  of  the  land  when  the  code  was 
framed  in  its  present  form.  (2).  The  book  is  pushed 
down  to  the  reign  of  Solomon  by  the  law  of  the  king 
(xxviii.  36;  compare  xvii.  14-20),  and  its  prohibition  of 
horses  and  chariots  and  many  wives.  We  cannot  deny 
to  Moses  the  conception  of  a  future  kingdom  in  Israel. 
In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Israelites  had  just  come  out 
of  bondage  to  the  king  of  Egypt,  and  that  they  were 
surrounded  by  nations  having  kings;  it  was  natural  to 
think  of  kings  for  Israel  likewise.  The  subsequent  pro- 
vision of  temporary  judges  or  rulers  called  by  God  and 
endued  with  His  Spirit,  is  not  contemplated  in  the 
Deuteronomic  code.  A  king  would  be  the  likely  thing 
in  the  subsequent  times  after  the  conquest.  If  the 
Deuteronomic  code  had  this  ideal,  such  a  law  in  the 
code  might  be  regarded  as  appropriate.  The  reproof  by 
Samuel  of  a  subsequent  desire  for  a  king  might  be  in 
view  of  the  altered  circumstances.  The  nation  was  not 
ripe  for  the  kingdom,  as  the  history  of  Saul  clearly  indi- 
cates. It  was  premature  on  the  part  of  the  people,  pre- 
sumptuous, and  overriding  the  divine  provision  of  the 
temporary  judges  or  saviors.  And  yet  while  all  this 
speculation  may  be  true,  it  is  not  so  natural  an  interpre- 
tation as  that  the  law  was  made  in  view  of  the  historic 
occasions  for  it  which  were  first  in  Solomon's  time,  and 
that  the  law  of  the  king  was  given  when  Israel  had 
ripened  into  a  kingdom. 

(3).  Riehm  presses  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy 
down  to  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  by  the  law  of  the  su- 
preme judiciary  at  one  place,  Deut.  xvii.  8  seq.,  which  did 
not  exist  till  the  time  of  Jehoshaphat,  2  Chron.  xix.  8-1 1. 
(4).   He  presses    it   down  to  the   time   of  Hezekiah   on 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY  go 

account  of  the  one  only  central  altar  which  was  not 
realized  till  the  time  of  Hezekiah,  2  Kings  xviii.  4;  2 
Chron.  xxxi.  i ;  Isaiah  xxxvi.  7.  The  facts  are  that  the 
one  place  of  judgment  and  the  one  exclusive  altar  were 
not  realized  until  the  times  mentioned,  as  the  ideal  of 
the  king  was  not  realized  until  the  Davidic  dynasty;  but 
do  these  facts  disprove  the  promulgation  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  in  the  land  of  Moab?  These  facts  prove 
the  non-observance  of  the  code,  the  disregard  of  it,  and 
possibly  also  ignorance  of  it ;  they  favor  its  non-exist- 
ence, but  do  not  entirely  prove  it.  If  we  could  present 
good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  the  opinion  that  the 
Deuteronomic  code  is  a  prophetic  ideal  code,  given 
before  the  conquest  in  view  of  a  long  sojourn  of  the 
nation  in  Palestine,  these  facts  might  be  explained. 
But  the  difficulty  is  to  find  such  reasons.  Who  can 
prove  it  ? 

(5).  Riehm  fixes  the  composition  in  the  time  of  Ma- 
nasseh  and  the  reign  of  Psammeticus  on  account  of 
the  going  down  to  Egypt  in  ships,  Deut.  xxviii.  68. 
The  author  of  Deuteronomy^  the  People's  Book,  (Lon- 
don, 1877),  has  referred  to  The  Records  of  the  Past, 
(vi.,  p.  37,)  for  a  statement  from  the  time  of  Rameses 
III.,  which  shows  the  equipment  of  fleets  on  the  Med- 
iterranean at  that  time.  This  was  therefore  quite  pos- 
sible for  Moses  to  conceive  of.  But  if  the  other  reasons 
for  a  late  date  are  valid  this  helps  to  give  the  date  more 
closely. 

Canon  Driver  gives  additional  reasons  as  follows: 
(6).  ''  The  forms  of  idolatry  alluded  to,  especially  the 
worship  of  the  ''  host  of  heaven  "  (iv.  19  ;  xvii.  3),  seem  to 
point  to  the  middle  period  of  the  monarchy.  It  is  true, 
the  worship  of  the  sun  and  moon  is  ancient,  as  is  attested 
even  by  the  names  of  places  in  Canaan  ;  but  in  the  no- 


84  THE   HEXATEUCH 

tices  (which  are  frequent)  of  idolatrous  practices  in  Judges 
to  Kings,  no  mention  occurs  of  ''  the  host  of  heaven  " 
till  the  period  of  the  later  kings.  That  the  cult  is  pre-  Cit^,  s-^*" 
supposed  in  Dt.  and  not  merely  anticipated  propheti- 
cally, seems  clear  from  the  terms  in  which  it  is  referred 
to.  While  we  are  not  in  a  position  to  affirm  positively 
that  the  danger  was  not  felt  earlier,  the  law,  as  formu- 
lated in  Dt.,  seems  designed  to  meet  the  form  which  the 
cult  assumed  at  a  later  age." 

(7).  ''  The  influence  of  Dt.  upon  subsequent  writers  is  c/>^-<"  ""  ^ 
clear  and  indisputable.  It  is  remarkable,  now,  that  the  ^  '.', ,  3^^ 
early  prophets,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  the  undisputed  por-  --^-,^,^^^^^, 
tions  of  Isaiah,  show  no  certain  traces  of  this  influence;  v>^-;;i-i 
Jeremiah  exhibits  marks  of  it  on  nearly  every  page;  „itWi'' 
Zephaniah  and  Ezekiel  are  also  evidently  influenced  by  ^  .27-)? 
it.  If  Dt.  were  composed  in  the  period  between  Isaiah  ^-/^^^n- 
and  Jeremiah,  these   facts  v.ould  be  exactly  accounted^  ^"I^';:^,^     I 

(8).  "  T\\Q  prophetic  teaching  of  Dt.,  the  point  of  view     v-^^*- ^^  ^"^^  ^ 
from   which  the   laws  are  presented,  the  principles  by 
which  conduct  is  estimated,  presuppose  a  relatively  ad- 
vanced  stage  of  theological   reflection,  as  they  also  ap- 
proximate to  what  is  found  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel." 

(9).  *'  In  Dt.  xvi.  22,  we  read,  '■  Thou  shalt  not  set  thee 
up  a  7}iazzebah  (obelisk  or  pillar),  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  hateth.'  Had  Isaiah  known  of  this  law  he  would 
hardly  have  adopted  the  mazzebah  (xix.  19)  as  a  symbol 
of  the  conversion  of  Egypt  to  the  true  faith,  the  sup-  /  ^f-] 
position  that  heathen  pillars  are  meant  in  Dt.  is^nqt'^JJi  .vt^v;. 
favored  by  the  context  (v.  21b)  ;  the  use  of  these  has, 
moreover,  been  proscribed  before  (vii.  5  ;  xii.  3)."  "^ 

Riehm  t  represents  the  Deuteronomic  code  as  a  liter- 

*  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  82,  83. 

tin  /,  C.^  p.    M2. 


THE   DATE   OF    DEUTERONOMY  35 

ary  fiction.  The  author  lets  Moses  appear  as  a  pro- 
phetic, popular  orator,  and  as  the  first  priestly  reader  oi 
the  law.  It  is  a  literary  fiction  as  Ecclesiastes  is  a  lit- 
erary fiction.  The  latter  uses  the  person  of  Solomon  as 
the  master  of  wisdom  to  set  forth  the  lesson  of  wisdom. 
The  former  uses  Moses  as  the  great  lawgiver,  to  promul- 
gate divine  laws. 

We  shall  now  adduce  on  the  other  side  what  seem  to 
be  the  chief  obstacles  to  the  composition  of  Deuter- 
onomy in  the  age  of  Josiah.  (1).  The  statement  of  2 
Kings  xxii.  3  f.  is  to  the  effect  that  a  law  book  was  dis- 
covered which  had  for  a  long  period  been  neglected,  and 
whose  commands  had  been  so  long  disobeyed  that  the 
nation  was  rejected  by  Vahweh  on  that  account.  The 
Deuteronomic  code  had  been  lost  sight  of  by  kings  and 
princes  and  the  priesthood,  the  entire  official  class  of  the 
nation.  This  neglect  was  a  national  and  a  terrible  sin 
that  involved  the  extreme  penalty  of  the  exile  of  the 
nation.  Under  these  circumstances  a  law  book  issued 
as  a  legal  fiction  would  be  most  extraordinary.  How 
could  the  nation  incur  such  a  penalty  for  trangressing 
laws  which  were  now  promulgated  for  the  first  time?  A 
long  series  of  violations  is  presupposed.  The  laws  can- 
not, therefore,  date  from  a  period  shortly  before  this  Re- 
form. The  code  was  presented  as  an  ancient  and  long- 
neglected  law  book.  This  argumentation  makes  it  evi- 
dent that  an  ancient  law  book  was  discovered,  but  it  does 
not  prove  that  that  code  is  the  same  as  the  present  rhe- 
torical Deuteronomy.  If  an  ancient  law  book  of  Moses 
had  been  found  and  its  legislation  was  put  in  a  rhetorical 
form  in  the  time  of  Josiah,  this  reasoning  would  be  satis- 
fied.    As  Canon  Driver  says: 

"The  new  element  in  Dt.  is  thus  not  the  laws,  but  their />are- 
netic  setting.     Deuteronomy  m?.y  be  described  as  \.\\q.  prophetic 


85  THE  HEXATEUCH 

re-formidation,  aiid  adaptatioji  to  new  needs,  of  an  older  legisla- 
tion. Judging  from  the  manner  in  wliich  the  legislation  of  JE  is 
dealt  with  in  Dt.,  it  is  highly  probable  that  there  existed  the  tra- 
dition— perhaps  even  in  a  written  form — of  a  final  address  deliv- 
ered by  Moses  in  the  plains  of  Moab,  to  which  some  of  the  laws 
peculiar  to  Dt.  were  attached,  as  those  common  to  it  and  JE  are 
attached  to  the  legislation  at  Horeb.  There  would  be  a  more 
obvious  motive  for  the  plan  followed  by  the  author  if  it  could  be 
supposed  that  he  worked  thus  upon  a  traditional  basis.  But  be 
that  as  it  may,  the  bulk  of  the  laws  contained  in  Dt.  is  undoubt- 
edly far  more  ancient  than  the  time  of  the  author  himself:  and 
in  dealing  with  them  as  he  has  done,  in  combining  them  into  a 
manual  for  the  guidance  of  the  people,  and  providing  them  with 
hortatory  introductions  and  comments,  he  cannot,  in  the  light  of 

/the  parallels  that  have  been  referred  to,  be  held  to  be  guilty  of 
^^^  dishonesty  or  literary  fraud.    There  is  nothing  in  Dt.  implying  an 

,  ^aJiP  ^  interested  or  dishonest  motive  on  the  part  of  the  (post-Mosaic) 
-iiCZ'^-f/^  author :  and  this  being  so,  its  moral  and  spiritual  greatness  re- 
(,L-*a,^.yvijb  y  mains  unimpaired  ,  its  inspired  authority  is  in  no  respect  less  than 
^^^^^  o^  that  of  any  other  part  of  the  O.  T.  Scriptures  which  happens  to 
,^-  be  anonymous."* 

>    • 

(2).  There  are  several  laws  in  the  Deuteronomic  code 
which  are  inappropriate  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  and 
which  can  only  be  explained  in  connection  with  the  cir- 
cumstances of  Israel  in  the  earliest  history.  The  com- 
mands to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  and  the  Amalekites, 
w^ith  their  circumstances  of  detail  (Deut.  vii.  22  ;  xx.  19; 
XXV.  17);  the  general  laws  of  war  (Deut.  xx.  T-15  ;  xxi. 
10-14),  and  others,  are  appropriate  only  in  connection 
with  the  first  occupation  of  the  holy  land  and  not  in  the 
time  when  Israel  was  threatened  only  by  foreign  ene- 
mies. But  these  laws  may  be  ancient  laws  from  the 
ancient  code  taken  up  into  the  Deuteronomic  code  in  its 
present  rhetorical  form.  They  do  not  prove  that  the 
code  in  its  present  rhetorical  form  is  ancient. 


*  Liter,  cf  the  O.  T.,  p.  85. 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY  <;^7 

(3).  The  circumstances  of  the  reign  of  Josiah  were  un- 
favorable to  the  promulgation  and  enforcement  of  a  new 
code  of  the  character  of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation, 
and  Jeremiah  was  the  last  man  to  be  the  most  zealous 
champion  of  such  a  code.  The  opposition  to  such  a  code 
coming  down  from  the  previous  times  of  Manasseh  and 
breaking  out  immediately  on  the  death  of  Josiah,  sup- 
ported by  the  customs  and  prejudices  of  the  nation, 
would  have  been  too  great  to  be  overcome  save  by  a 
code  claiming  and  gaining  recognition  as  of  ancient  and 
divine  authority  ;  and  Jeremiah  and  the  author  of  the 
Books  of  Kings,  who  are  full  of  the  spirit  and  ideas  of 
Deuteronomy,  could  not  have  been  deceived  in  such  mat- 
ters and  would  not  have  joined  hands  to  deceive  the 
people  even  with  the  pious  end  in  view  of  serving  Yahweh 
and  saving  the  nation.  This  is  valid  as  against  a  new 
code,but  not  against  a  newcodification  of  an  ancient  code. 

(4).  The  language  of  Jeremiah  and  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  is  no  longer  the  old  classic  Hebrew,  but  inter- 
mediate in  the  historic  development  of  the  language, 
showing  a  breaking  off  from  classic  usage,  as,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  occasional  neglect  of  the  ivaw  consec.  of 
the  imperfect,  and  the  use  of  zvaw  conj.  with  the  perfect 
instead.  But  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  is  classic  in  its 
language  throughout.  In  view  of  the  fact  of  the  re- 
semblance of  Jeremiah  and  the  Books  of  Kings  to 
Deuteronomy  in  other  respects,  this  difference  of  lan- 
guage is  the  more  striking,  showing  that  Jeremiah  and 
the  author  of  Kings  were  imbued  with  the  spirit  of 
Deuteronomy  as  an  ancient  law  book  of  divine  author- 
ity, but  that  it  must  be  placed  in  an  earlier  period  of  the 
languuge.  But  the  time  of  Josiah  was  not  after  all  late 
for  Hebrew  literature.  We  must  take  account  of  the  fact 
that  the  author  was  recodif)'ing  an  ancient  code,  and  so 


gg  THE   IIEXATEUCH 

would  be  influenced  to  use  an  archaic  style  and  preserve 
as  far  as  possible  the  flavor  of  the  original,  just  as  do 
the  compilers  of  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings.  And 
Deuteronomy  has  its  peculiarities  of  language,  many  of 
which  correspond  with  the  editorial  framework  of  the 
books  of  Kings.  As  Canon  Driver  says :  ''  The  lan- 
guage and  style  of  Dt.,  clear  and  flowing,  free  from 
archaisms,  but  purer  than  that  of  Jeremiah,  would  suit 
the  same  period.  It  is  difficult  in  this  connexion  not  to 
feel  the  force  of  Dillmann's  remark  (p.  6ii),  that  'the 
style  of  Dt.  implies  a  long  development  of  the  art  of 
\rvux         public   oratory,  and   is  not  of  a  character  to  belong  to 

^  **V  the  first  age  of  Iraelitish  literature.'  "* 
— ^-  ^      (5).  The  Mosaic   prophecy,   Deut.   xviii.    15    sq.^   pre- 
-j.  diets  another  prophet  like   Moses,  who  will   fulfil   and 

^  L.*^.  complete  his  legislation  with  divine  authority.  It  does 
not  recognize  an  order  of  prophets.  Nabij  in  our  opin- 
ion, is  never  used  as  a  collective.  If  this  passage  came 
from  the  period  of  the  kings  and  prophets  there  could 
hardly  fail  to  be  allusions  to  the  prophetic  order,  or  to 
other  prophets  of  Yahweh.  We  find  in  Jeremiah  and  in 
Isaiah  liii.,  where  the  Messianic  prophet  again  comes 
into  prominence  in  the  Messianic  idea,  such  references, 
and  we  would  expect  them  in  Deuteronomy  under  the 
same  circumstances.  This  prophecy  is  Mosaic  in  es- 
sence,t  but  that  does  not  prove  that  the  term  Nabi  was 
used  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  this  prophecy  does  not 
carry  with  it  the  whole  code  in  which  it  is  placed. 

(6).  Looking  now  at  Deuteronomy  itself,  we  note  its 
language  as  to  the  authorship  of  its  code  (xxxi. 
9-1 1,  24-26). 

"And  Moses  wrote  this  law  and  gave  it  unto  the  priests,  the 


J- 


I.  c.  p.  83.  t  See  Briggs'  Messianic  Prophecy. 


THE  DATE  OF  DEUTERONOMY 


89 


sons  of  Levi,  who  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahvveh,  and 
unto  all  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  Moses  enjoined  them  saying, 
At  the  end  of  seven  years,  in  the  festival  of  the  year  of  release, 
in  the  feast  of  tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  shall  come  to  appear 
before  the  face  of  Yahvveh  thy  God,  in  the  place  which  He  will 
choose,  thou  shalt  read  this  law  before  all  Israel  in  their  ears." 
"  And  it  came  to  pass  when  Moses  had  finished  writing  the 
words  of  this  laiv  in  a  book  to  their  end,  Moses  enjoined  the  Le- 
vites,  the  bearers  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  Yahweh,  saying  : 
'  Take  this  book  of  the  law  and  put  it  by  the  side  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  Yahweh  your  God,  and  let  it  be  there  for  a  wit- 
ness against  thee.'  " 

This  seems  to  imply  the  Mosaic  authorship  and  com- 
position of  a  code  of  law,  but  was  that  code  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  in  its  present  form  ?  The  view  of  Delitzsch 
can  hardly  be  regarded  as  doing  violence  to  the  text 
when  he  represents  that  Deuteronomy  is  in  the  same  re- 
lation to  Moses  as  the  fourth  gospel  to  Jesus,  in  that 
as  the  apostle  John  reproduces  the  discourses  of  Jesus, 
so  the  Deuteronomist  reproduces  the  discourses  of 
Moses,  giving  more  attention  to  the  internal  spirit  than 
the  written  form,  and  thus  presents  the  discourses  of 
Moses  in  a  free  rhetorical  manner.  All  that  is  said  may 
be  true  if  we  suppose  that  an  ancient  Mosaic  code  was 
discovered  in  Josiah's  time  and  that  this  code  was  put  in 
a  popular  rhetorical  form  as  a  people's  law  book  for 
practical  purposes  under  the  authority  of  the  king, 
prophet  and  priest.  Would  it  be  any  the  less  inspired 
on  that  account?  Were  not  Josiah,  Hilkiah  and  Jere- 
miah capable  of  giving  authority  to  such  a  law  book  as 
a  code  of  divine  law  essentially  Mosaic  in  origin  ? 


IX. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS  * 

Edward  Reuss  is  the  chief  who  has  given  direction 
and  character  to  this  stadium  of  the  Higher  Criticism.  As 
early  as  1833  f  he  maintained  that  the  priest-code  of  the 
middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch  was  subsequent  to  the 
Deuteronomic  code.  This  came  to  him,  he  says,  as  an 
intuition  in  his  Biblical  studies,  and  he  presented  it  to 
his  students  in  his  University  lectures  from  1834  on- 
ward. In  1835  George  took  independently  a  similar 
position.:}:  Vatke  also,  in  1835,  reached  the  same  results 
from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Hegelian  philosophy, 
taking  the  ground  that  the  religion  of  Israel  has  three 
stages  of  development,  and  that  the  simple  religion  of 
the  feeling  in  the  Prophets  and  Deuteronomy  precedes 
the  more  external  and  reflective  religion  of  the  mass  of 


*  For  the  history  of  this  Stadium  see  Wellhausen  in  Bleek's  Einleitung,  4th 
Aufl.,  p.  152  sq.  ;  Merx  in  Tuch's  Com.  il.  d.  Genesis,  p.  Ixxviii.  sq.  ;  Duff, 
History  0/  Research  C07icer7iing  the  Structure  0/  the  Old  Testament  Books  in 
the  Billiotheca  Sacra,  1880,  Oct.,  and  1882,  July  ;  Kayser,  Der  gegenwdrtige 
Stand  der  Pentateuch/rage  in  the  Jahrhilcher  f.  Prot.  Theologie,  1881,  ii.,  iii., 
and  iv.  ;  Gast,  Pentateuch-Criticism,  its  History  and  Presetit  State,  in  the 
Reformed  Quarterly  Review,  July,  1882. 

t  Article  Jucenthum  in  Ersch  and  Gruber's  Encyclop.,  ii.  Bd.  27,  p.  334. 
Hall.  Literaiurzeitu7ig,  1838, 

\  Die  alter  en  judisch.  Feste  mit  einer  Kritik  der  Qesetzgebung  des  Pent., 

1835- 

(90) 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS  9I 

the  Pentateuch ;  and  that  Prophetism  and  Mosaism 
must,  for  the  most  part,  be  transposed.* 

These  writers  did  not  receive  much  attention.  Their 
positions  were  too  theoretical  and  without  a  sufficient 
support  in  the  details  of  practical  exegesis  to  gain  ac- 
ceptance. 

In  1862  J.  Popperf  took  the  position  that  the  de- 
scription of  the  erection  of  the  tabernacle,  Ex.  xxxv.-xL, 
and  the  consecration  of  the  priests,  Lev.  vii.-ix.,  were 
later  than  the  directions  respecting  them  both  in  Ex. 
xxv.-xxxi.,  and  contended  that  they  received  their 
present  form  some  time  after  the  Babylonian  captivity. 

Reuss  continued  to  work  at  his  theory  in  his  Univer- 
sity lectures,  and  it  was  through  his  pupils  that  in  recent 
times  it  has  won  its  way  to  so  wide  an  acceptance.  The 
first  of  these  was  Heinrich  Graf,  who,  in  i866,:j;  presented 
strong  arguments  for  the  priority  of  Deuteronomy  to 
the  priest-code  of  Lev.  xviii.-xxiii.,  xxv.,  xxvi.,  Ex. 
xxxi.,  holding  that  the  latter  was  from  the  prophet 
Ezekiel,  and  that  in  the  time  of  Ezra  other  legislation  was 
was  added,  r.^.  Ex.  xii.  1-28, 43-5 1,  xxv.-xxxi.,  xxxv.-xl.; 
Lev.  i.-xvi.,  xxiv.  10-23  ;  Num.  i.  48-x.  28,  xv.-xix., 
xxviii.-xxxi.,  xxxv.  i6-xxxvi.  13,  and  that  the  last  addi- 
tions were  made  soon  after  Ezra.  Graf  still  held  to  the 
priority  of  the  Elohistic  narrative.  This  inconsistency 
was  exposed  by  Riehm  and  Noldcke,  so  that  Graf  was 
forced  to  make  the  Elohistic  narrative  post-exilic  also.§ 

Meanwhile  the  English  world  had  been  stirred  by  the 


*  Biblische  Theologie.,  1835,  i.  i,  p.  641  sq. 

t  Biblische  Bericht  iiber  die  Sti/tshiitle. 

\  Merx,  Archiv^  i.,  pp.  68-106,  208-236  ;  Die  geschichtliche  Bilcher  des  Alt. 
Test. 

%  Studien  ^f  A';//.,  1868,  p.  372  ;  Merx,  Archiv^  i.,  466-477.  Reuss  also  at 
this  time  held  the  same  position. 


92  THE   ITEXATEUCH 

attacks  of  Bishop  Colcnso  on  the  historical  character  of 
the  Pentateuch  and  book  of  Joshua,  and  in  the  Essays 
and  Reviews  by  a  number  of  scholars  representing  free 
thought.*  These  writers  fell  back  on  the  older  deistic 
objections  to  the  PcntatciicJi  as  Jiistor)\  and  as  contain- 
ing a  supernatural  religion,  and  mingled  therewith  a 
reproduction  of  German  thought,  chiefly  through  Bun- 
sen.  They  magnified  the  discrepancies  in  the  narratives 
and  legislation,  and  attacked  the  supernatural  element, 
but  added  nothing  to  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Scrint- 
ures.  So  far  as  they  took  position  on  this  subject  tl 
fell  into  line  with  the  more  radical  element  of  the  school 
of  De  Wotte.  They  called  the  attention  of  British  and 
American  scholars  away  from  the  literary  study  of  the 
Bible  and  the  true  work  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  to  a 
defence  of  the  supernatural  and  the  inspiration  of  the 
Bible.  They  were  attacked  by  various  divines  in  Great 
Britain  and  America,  and  their  influence  overcome  for 
the  time.-f* 

The  work  of  Colenso,  however,  made  a  great  im- 
pression upon  the  Dutch  scholar  Kuenen,  who  had 
already  been  advancing  under  the  influence  chiefly  of 
Popper  and  Graf,  to  the   most  radical  positions.:}:     He 


*  The  Peiitafeuch  and  Book  of  JosJiua  critically  examined,  Part  i.-vii., 
1862-79  ;  J^ecent  Inquiries  in  Theology  by  e^ninent  English  Churchmen,  bei7ig 
Essays  and  Reviews,  4th  Am.  edition  from  2d  London,  1862. 

t  Among  these  we  may  mention  the  authors  of  Aids  to  Faith,  being  a  reply 
to  '*  Essays  and  Reviews,"  American  edition  1862  ;  W.  H.  Green,  The  Penta- 
teuch vindicated  from  the  Aspersions  0/  Bishop  Colenso,  N.  Y.,  1S63. 

\  In  his  Historisch-kritisch  Onderzoek,  Leiden,  1861-5,  p.  165  f.,  194  f.,  he 
had  taken  a  similar  position  to  Graf,  that  the  legislation  in  the  Elohistic  docu- 
ment was  composed  of  laws  of  various  dates  arising  out  of  the  priestly  circle,  the 
last  editing  of  them  being  later  than  the  Deuteronomist,  so  that  the  Redactor  of 
the  Pentateuch  was  a  priest.  But  subsequent  investigations  led  him  further. 
His  later  positions  are  represented  in  his  Godsdienst  van  Israel,  1S69-70,  the 
English  edition,  Religion  0/  Israel,  1874  ;  De  vij/  Boeken  van  Mazes,  1872  ; 
De  Profeten  en  de  pro/etie  onder  Israel,  1875,  translated  into  English,  The 


THE   DEVELOPMENT   HYPOTHESIS  93 

took  the  ground  that  the  religion  of  Israel  was  a  purely 
natural  religion,  developing  like  all  other  religions  in 
various  stages  from  the  grossest  polytheism  and  idolatry 
to  the  exalted  spiritual  conceptions  of  the  prophets. 
He  rejects  the  historical  character  of  the  Hexateuch, 
and  regards  it  as  composed  of  ancient  but  unreliable 
legends  and  myths,  the  legislation  representing  various 
stages,  the  earliest  in  the  period  of  the  kings.  The 
Deuteronomic  code  is  a  programme  of  the  Mosaic  party 
in  the  reign  of  Josiah,  the  priest-code  the  programme  of 
'he  hierarchy  at  the  restoration  under  Ezra.  He  is  un- 
willing to  ascribe  to  Moses  more  than  a  fragment  of  the 
decalogue.  He  finds  three  forms  of  worship,  that  of  the 
people,  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  law,  the  later  devel- 
oping out  the  earlier. 

Meanwhile  the  new  theory  found  a  supporter  in  Eng- 
land in  Dr.  Kalisch,  in  1867,  who,  influenced  in  part  by 
Vatke  and  Kuenen,  but  chiefly  by  George,  in  a  series  of 
valuable  excursus,  traces  the  development  of  the  various 
forms  of  legislation,  and  reaches  the  conclusion  that  the 
priestly  requirements  of  Leviticus  are  post-exilic."^ 

The  views  of  Reuss,  in  1869,  were  advocated  by 
Duhm,f  and  especially  in  1874,  by  Kayser,:}:  who  under- 
took a  most   careful   analysis  of  the   Pentateuch   with 


FropJiets  and  Prophecy  m  Israel^  ^^77,  and  numerous  articles  in  Theologisch 
Tijdsc/iri/t,  since  that  time,  and  last  of  all  Hibbert  Lectures,  National  Relig- 
ions and  Universal  Religions,  18S2.  Kuenen's  views  are  presented  by  Oorl  in  a 
popular  form  in  the  Bible  for  Learners,  3  vols.,  1880,  His  final  opinion  is 
given  in  his  Historisch-kritisck  Onderzoek,  2de  Uitgave,  1887-1889. 

*  In  his  Commentary  on  Exodus,  1855,  Dr.  Kalisch  is  inclined  to  defend  the 
traditional  view  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  In  his  Com.  on  Genesis, 
1858,  he  is  concerned  only  with  the  geographical  and  other  scientific  and  his- 
torical difficulues.  Rut  in  his  Com.  on  Leviticus,  Part  !.,  iSSy,  Part  ii.,  1872, 
he  advances  to  the  most  radical  positions. 

t  Theologie  dcr  Propheten. 

\  Vorexilische  Buck  der  Urgeschichte. 


94  THE   HEXATEUCa 

reference  to  the  theory,  and  gave  it  much  needed  sup- 
port from  the  literary  side.  Still  later,  Wellhausen,"^" 
in  \%'j6-'j,  gave  a  masterly  analysis  of  the  literary  feat- 
ures of  the  entire  Hexateuch,  which  commanded  the  at- 
tention of  all  Old  Testament  scholars,  and  then,  in  1878, 
carried  the  same  method  of  analysis  into  the  entire 
legislation,  combining  the  philosophical  method  of 
Vatke  with  the  exegetical  of  Reuss.  These  works  at 
once  won  over  a  large  number  of  prominent  scholars  to 
his  position,  such  as  Hermann  Schultz,  Kautzsch, 
Smend,  Stade,  Konig,  Gie-sebrecht,  Siegfried,  and  others 
in  Germany;  Lenormant  and  Vernes,  in  France;  VV. 
Robertson  Smith,  Samuel  Sharp,  C.  H.  Toy,  and  others 
in  Great  Britain  and  America.f  Wellhausen,  like 
Kuenen,  attacks  the  historical  character  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, denies  the  supernatural  element,  and  reconstructs 
in  the  most  arbitrary  manner — but  these  features  are 
personal,  and  have  no  necessary  connection  with  his 
critical  analysis  of  the  literary  documents  and  legisla- 
tion of  the  Pentateuch,  so  that  men  of  every  shade  of 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  supernatural  and  to  evangel- 
ical religion  may  be  found  among  the  advocates  of  the 
theory. 


*  Jahr.  /.  Deutsche  Theologie,  1876,  pp.  392-450.  531-602,  1877,  p.  407-409 ; 
Gescliichte  Israels^  i.,  1878. 

t  Schultz,  Alttestame7itliche  Th.ologie,  ii.  Auf.,  1878;  Kautzsch,  Theo.  Lite- 
ratur  Zeitung,  1879  (2) ;  Stade,  Gescliichte  des  Volkes  Israel;  Smend,  Der 
Prophet  Ezekiel,  1880;  Konig,  Der  Offenbarungshegriff  des  Alt.  Test.,  1882  ; 
Siegfried  in  Punjer's  Theo.  Jahresbericht,  18S2  ;  Giesebrecht,  Der  Sprachge- 
brauch  des  Hexateuchischen  Elohisten  in  Zeit.  /.  d.  Alt-test.  IVisscnscha/t, 
1881-2  ;  Lenormant,  Begi7inifigs  of  History,  edited  by  Prof.  Brown,  1882  ; 
Maurice  Vernes  in  Lichtenberger's  Efiyclopedia,  art.  Pentafeuque,  x.,  p.  447  ; 
W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jeivish  Church,  1881  ;  Thi 
Prophets  of  Israel,  18S2  ;  Sam.  Sharp,  History  of  the  Hebrew  Nation,  4th  Edit., 
1882  ;  C.  H.  Toy,  Babylonian  Eleinent  in  Ezekiel,  in  Jotcrnal  of  the  Society  of 
Biblical  Literature  end  Exegesis,  1882,  and  numerous  others. 


THE   DEVELOPMENT   HYPOTHESIS  95 

At  last  the  veteran  scholar,  P^dward  Rcuss  himself, 
sums  up  the  results  of  his  pupils'  work  as  well  as  his 
own  further  studies  in  1879  ^^"'^  1881."  Reuss  ascribes 
to  Moses  the  Decalogue  stript  of  its  present  para- 
phrase. The  poetic  pieces  Gen.  xlix. ;  Ex.  xv.  ;  Num. 
xxiii.-iv.,  the  book  of  the  wars  of  Jehovah,  and  the 
book  of  JasJier,  belong  to  the  northern  kingdom  after 
their  separation  from  Judah.  The  book  of  the  Cove- 
nant was  written  in  the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat.  The  Je- 
hovist  wrote  the  second  integral  part  of  our  Pentateuch 
in  the  second  half  of  the  ninth  century,  and  this  was 
followed  by  Deut.  xxxiii.,  and  sundry  legends  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  race  preserved  in  our  Genesis.  Deut. 
xxxii.  next  appeared.  Under  Josiah  the  Deuteronomist 
composed  the  third  great  section  of  our  Pentateuch, 
and  was  followed  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua. 
After  the  Restoration,  the  law  book  Lev.  xvii.-xxvi. 
was  issued,  and  the  priest-code  with  the  fourth  great 
section  of  our  Pentateuch. 

It  is  evident  that  the  school  of  Reuss  propose  a  revo- 
lutionary theory  of  th^  Literature  and  Religion  of 
Israel.  How  shall  we  meet  it  but  on  the  same  evan- 
gelical principles  with  which  all  other  theories  have  been 
met,  without  fear  and  without  prejudice,  in  the  honest 
search  for  the  real  truth  and  facts  of  the  case  ?  In  a 
critical  examination  of  this  theory,  it  is  important  to  dis- 
tinguish the  essential  features  from  the  accidental.  VVe 
must  distinguish  between  the  Rationalism  and  unbelief 
that  characterize  Kuenen,  Wellhausen,  and  Reuss,  which 
are  not  essential  to  the  theory  itself,  and  such  supporters 
of  the    theory   as    Kunig   in    Germany,  Lcnormant   in 


*  LTIistoire  Sahite  et  la   Lei,  1879;    Geschichte  der  Ileiligen  Schri/ten 
Alten  Testaments,  1881. 


96  THE    riEXATEUCH 

France,  Robertson  Smith  in  Scotland,  and  C.  H.Toy  in 
this  country.*  We  have  still  further  here,  as  through 
out  our  previous  investigation,  to  distinguish  between 
the  theory  and  the  new  facts  which  have  been  brought 
to  light  for  which  this  theory  proposes  to  account  better 
than  any  previous  ones. 

The  facts  are  these :     (i).  Our  Pentateuchal  legisla- 
tion is  con:iposed  of  several  codes,  w^hich  show  through- 
out variation   from  one  another.      (2).   If  we  take  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  as  a  unit  at  the  basis  of  the  his- 
tory of  Israel,  we  find  a  discrepancy  between  it  and  the 
History  and  the   Literature  of  the  nation   prior  to  the 
exile  in  these  two  particulars  :     {a).  A  silence  in  the  his- 
torical, prophetical,  poetical,  and  ethical  writings  as  to 
many  of  its  chief  institutions  ;  {d).  The  infraction  of  this 
■^'^    legislation  by  the  leaders  of  the  nation,  throughout  the 
^''^'.(^^istory  in  unconscious  innocence,  and   unrebuked.     (3). 
^  We  can   trace  a  development   in  the  religion  of  Israel 

from  the  conquest  to  the  exile  in  four  stages  correspond- 
ing in  a  most  remarkable  manner  to  the  variations  be- 
tween the  codes.  (4).  The  books  of  Kings  and  Chroni- 
cles in  their  representation  of  the  history  of  Israel  regard 
it,  the  former  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Deutero- 
nomic  code,  the  latter  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  priest- 
code.  (5).  The  prophet  Ezekiel  presents  us  a  detailed 
representation  of  institutions  which  seem  intermediate 
between  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  the  priest-code. 

The  theory  of  the  school  of  Reuss  attempts  to  account 
(i)  for  the  variation  of  the  codes  by  three  different  legis- 
lations at  widely  different  periods   of  time,  e.o.,  in  the 


*  Konig,  Dcr  OJcnbaruncrshe^riff,  ii.,  p.  333  sj.  ;  Lenormant,  Beginniiigs 
of  History,  p.  x.  so.;  W.  Robertson  Smith,  The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish 
Church,  Chap.  I.  ;  C.  H.  Tojr,  in  The  yojirnal  of  the  Society  of  Biblical  Liter- 
ature and  Exegesis,  1882,  p.  66  ;  Judaism  and  Christianity,  p.  70,  1893. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  HYPOTHESIS  ()7 

reign  of  Jehoshaphat,  of  Josiah,  and  at  the  Restoration  ; 
(2)  for  the  silence  and  the  infraction,  the  discrepancy 
between  the  Pentateuchal  legishition,  and  the  history 
and  the  literature,  by  the  noti-cxistcucc  of  the  legislation 
in  those  times  of  silence  and  infraction ;  (3)  for  the 
development  of  the  religion  of  Israel  in  accordance  with 
these  codes  by  the  representation  that  the  origin  of  these 
codes  corresponds  with  that  development ;  (4)  for  the 
difference  in  point  of  view  of  the  authors  of  Kings  and 
Chronicles,  on  the  ground  that  the  author  of  Kings  knew 
cnly  of  Deuteronomy,  while  the  author  of  Chronicles  was 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  the  new  priest-code  ;  (5)  for  the 
peculiar  position  of  Ezekiel's  legislation  by  the  state- 
ment, that  his  legislation  was  in  fact  an  advance  beyond 
the  Deuteronomic  code,  and  ?i  preparation  for  the  priest- 
code,  which  was  post-exilic.  No  one  can  examine  this 
tJieory  in  view  of  the  facts  which  it  seeks  to  explain  with- 
out admitting  at  once  its  simplicity ;  its  correspondence 
with  the  law  of  the  development  of  other  religions ;  its 
apparent  harmony  with  these  facts,  and  its  removal  of 
not  a  few  difficulties.  Hence  its  attractiveness  and 
power  over  against  the  prevalent  theory  which  was  not 
constructed  to  account  for  these  facts,  and  which  has 
been  too  often  defended  by  special  pleading. 

There  are  various  ways  of  dealing  with  this  radical 
and  revolutionary  theory.  We  might  attempt  to  deny 
these  facts  or  explain  them  away.  Such  a  course  is  but 
kicking  against  the  pricks.  It  does  not  satisfy  inquirers, 
but  rather  destroys  the  confidence  of  all  earnest  seekers 
after  the  truth.  We  might  yield  to  the  attractiveness 
of  the  theory,  and  go  with  the  tide  of  Biblical  scholar- 
ship which  has  set  so  strongly  in  that  direction.  We 
might  shut  our  eyes  to  the  whole  matter,  go  to 
work    in    other    fields,    attend    to    the    practical    duties 


98  THE  HEXATEUCH 

of  life,  and  leave  these  Pentateuchal  studies  to  others. 
Any  one  of  these  three  ways  would  be  easier  than  to 
look  the  facts  in  the  face,  and  inquire  whether  the  theory 
of  the  school  of  Reuss  accounts  for  them  in  whole  or  in 
part  or  at  all. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES. 

The  variation  in  the  several  codes,  Ex.  xx.-xxiv. 
Ex.  xxxiv.,  Deut.  xii.-xxvi.,  and  the  scattered  legis- 
lation of  the  middle  books,  is  so  constant  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  explain  it  away.  These  variations  were 
already  noted  in  part  by  Calvin,  who  wrote  a  Harmony 
of  the  Legislation,  but  he  was  not  followed  by  later 
writers.  These  variations  were  more  closely  scrutinized 
by  Eichhorn,  and  he  explained  them  on  the  ground  that 
the  Deuteronomic  code  was  di  people  s  code,  the  Legisla- 
tion of  the  middle  books  2.  priests  code.* 

Another  important  difference  to  which  Riehm  calls 
attention  is  that  the  priest-code  seems  designed  for  a 
people  still  wanderins:  in  the  wilderness,  the  other  for  a 
people  already  dwelling  in  the  land  of  Canaan.  More- 
over, the  Deuteronomic  code  is  connected  with  a  cove- 
nant in  the  land  of  Moab,  the  covenant  code  with  a 
covenant  at  Horeb  (Deut.  xxix.  9-14).     The  priest-code 


*This  is  acknowledged  by  Riehm  :  "  For  all  the  Deuteronomic  laws  prescribe 
to  the  people  who  know  not  the  law,  what  to  do  and  leave  undone,  none  of  them 
define  the  duties  of  the  priests  and  Levites  who  knew  the  law.  .  .  .  The  first 
distinction  between  the  ancient  (Levitical)  and  Deuteronomic  legislation  is  ac- 
cordingly this  :  that  the  one  will  give  a  complete  law-book  designed  for  all,  those 
knowing  the  law  and  those  ignorant  of  it,  the  other  designed  only  for  the  people 
who  knew  not  the  law."     Gesetzgehicng  Mosis^  1854,  p.  11  sq. 

(99) 


IQQ  THE  HEXATEUCH 


is  given  as  the  words  of  Yahweh  revealed  to  Moses. 
In  the  Deuteronomic  code  Moses  comes  forward  as  a 
popular  orator  to  urge  the  people  to  the  observance  of 
the  laws  which  he  makes  known  as  the  prophet  of 
Yahweh. 

Thus  according  to  Eichhorn  and  Riehm  we  have  a 
difference  o{ point  of  view  \n\-\\z\\  determines  the  structure 
and  the  character  of  these  codes  and  necessarily  produced 
a  variation  throughout.  To  this  discrimination  of  the 
Deuteronomic  and  priests'  codes  we  may  add  that  the 
two  codes,  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  and  xxxiv.  differ  no  less  strik- 
ingly from  them  both.  They  contain  brief,  terse, 
pregnant  sentences  of  command.  They  resemble  the 
decalogue  itself.  It  is  generally  agreed  among  Biblical 
scholars,  that  the  little  book  of  the  Covenant  is  also  a 
decalogue  (Ex.  xxxiv.),  and  not  a  few  find  that  the  larger 
book  of  the  Covenant  is  also  composed  of  a  series  of 
decalogues.^  To  this  opinion  we  subscribe  without 
hesitation,  and  find  in  it  an  evidence  that  this  legislation 
is  the  nearest  to  the  fundamental  Mosaic  legislation,  in 
accordance  with  the  explicit  statement  that  Moses  wrote 
it  in  a  book  of  the  Covenant.  We  thus  have  a  third 
and  fourth  earlier  points  of  view.  These  four  codes 
therefore  present  us  the  judicial,  the  prophetical,  and  the 
priestly  points  of  view,  which  determine  the  variation  in 
aim,  form,  structure,  and  character  of  the  three  codes. 
This  has  been  entirely  neglected  by  the  advocates  of  the 
traditional  theory.  This  has  also  been  ignored  to  a  great 
extent  by  the  advocates  of  the  theories  of  De  Wette  and 
Reuss,  who  have  sought  to  explain  these  variations  by 
a  development  extending  over  a  wide  period  of  time. 


*Bertheaii,  Die  siehen  Gimp  pen  Mosaisclier  Ce<^etze,  1840,  even  finds  such 
decalogues  in  the  middle  books,  but  does  not  make  it  evident  save  in  the  two 
books  of  the  Covenant. 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES  K)] 

The  evangelical  men  of  our  time  naturally  feel  the  force 
of  the  philosophical  theory  of  development,  and  other 
things  being  equal,  will  accept  it  to  account  for  the 
phenomena,  if  they  can  do  it  without  peril  to  their  faith. 
We  shall  look  at  the  differences  and  inquire  how  they 
may  be  harnionized. 

(i).  When  we  compare  the  decalogue  of  the  covenant 
code  of  J,  with  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  covenant 
code  of  E,  and  then  the  laws  corresponding  to  this 
decalogue  in  the  codes  of  D,  H,  and  P;  the  develop- 
ment of  this  decalogue  in  intension  and  extension  is  so 
clear  in  the  constant  order  J,  D,  H,  P,  that  it  seems 
impossible  to  dispute  it."^ 

(2).  When  now  we  take  the  decalogues  of  the  covenant 
code  of  E,  so  far  as  they  have  not  yet  been  used  in  the 
previous  study,  and  trace  them  in  their  corresponding 
laws  through  the  codes  D,  H,  P,  it  becomes  clear  that 
the  laws  in  the  covenant  code  of  E  *'  form  the  founda- 
tion of  the  Deuteronomic  legislation."f 

(3).  There  is  also  an  apparent  development  between 
the  codes  of  D  and  H,  which  may  be  seen  in  the  laws 
common  to  these  codes.J 

(4).  There  is  an  evident  development  in  the  laws 
respecting  altars. 

JE  narrate  that  altars  were  built  by  Noah  after  leav- 
ing the  ark  Gn.  viii.  20  ;  by  Abraham  at  Shechem  Gn. 
xii.  7,  Bethel  Gn.  xii.  8,  Hebron  Gn.  xiii.  18,  Mt.  Moriah 
Gn.  xxii.  9  ;  by  Isaac  at  Beersheba  Gn.  xxvi.  25  ;  by  Jacob 
at  Shechem  Gn.  xxxiii.  20,§  at  Bethel  Gn.  xxxv.  7 ;  by 
Moses  at  Rephidim  Ex.  xvii.  15,  Horeb  Ex.  xxiv.  4;  by 


*  See  Appendix  V.  f  Driver  /.  c  p.  70.     See  Appendix  VI, 

\  See  Appendix  VII. 

I  Yet  this  perhaps  a  mistake  for  n3i*Q,  being  obj.  of  D::'"3^**"1,  not  elsewhere 
with  n3t!^,  of.  also  DiUmann. 


1Q2  THE  IIEXATEUCH 

Balak  at  Bamoth  Baal,  Pisgah  &  Peor  Nu.  xxiii.  i,  14, 
29;  by  Joshua  011  Mt.  Ebal  Jos.  viii.  30;  the  prophetic 
histories  narrate  that  altars  were  built  by  Gideon  at 
^^  I.  Pphra  Ju.  vi.  24;  by  a  man  of  God  at  Bethel  Ju.  xxi.  4  ; 
>^«JC5lu,>'i^by  Samuel  at  Ramah  i  S,  vii.  17  ;  by  Saul  after  Mich- 
mash  I  S.  xiv.  35  ;  by  David  on  the  threshing  floor  of 
Oman  2  S.  xxiv.  25  =  1  Ch.  xxi.  18,  xxii.  i;  that  Sol- 
omon sacrificed  on  the  altar  at  Gibeon  i  K.  iii.  4  and 
built  altars  in  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  I  K.  vi.  20,  viii. 
64;  that  Jeroboam  built  an  altar  at  Bethel  i  K.  xii.  32 
(which  was  destroyed  by  Josiah  2  K.  xxiii.  15);  and 
that  Elijah  repaired  an  ancient  altar  on  Carmel  i  K. 
xviii.  30.  An  altar  in  Egypt  is  predicted  Is.  xix.  19. 
All  this  accords  with  the  law  of  the  Covenant  code  Ex. 
XX.  24-26  which  recognizes  a  plurality  of  altars  and  pre- 
scribes that  they  shall  be  built  of  soil  or  unhewn  stones, 
and  without  steps  ;  so  of  stonesDt.  xxvii.  6,  of  wJwle  stones 
Jos.  viii.  31  2l\\Ao{  tzvelve  stojtes  i  K.  xviii.  30,  32,  cf.  Is. 
xxvii.  9.  The  altar  was  also  a  place  of  refuge  Ex.  xxi.  14 
(JE)  I  K.  i.  50,  51,  ii.  28.  (2).  D  prescribes  one  central 
altar  Dt.  xii.  27,  but  no  attempt  to  enforce  this  law  ap- 
pears until  Josiah  who  destroys  all  other  altars  besides 
the  one  in  Jerusalem  2  K.  xxiii.  8-20.  (3).  P  limits 
sacrifices  to  the  altars  of  the  tabernacle.  A  great  altar 
was  built  East  of  the  Jordan,  but  it  was  according  to  P 
only  as  an  ^^  after  the  pattern  of  the  altar  before  the 

Tabernacle  Jos.  xxii.  10-34.  P  describes  two  altars:  a. 
the  altar  of  burnt  offering  Ex.  xxx.  28,  xxxi.  9,  xxxv.  16, 
xxxviii.  I,  xl.  6,  10,  29,  Lv.  iv.  7,  10,  25,  25,  30,  34= 
brazen  altar  Ex.  xxxviii.  30,  xxxix.  39,  made  of  acacia 
wood  plated  with  brass  5x5x3  cubits  having  four  horns 
and  a  network  of  brass,  upon  which  all  sacrifices  by  fire 
were  made  Ex.  xxvii.  1-8,  xxxviii.  1-7;  b.  altar  for  the 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES  j[03 

burning  of  incense,  made  of  acacia  wood  plated  with 
gold  1x1x2  cubits,  with  four  horns  and  a  crown  of  gold, 
Ex.  XXX.  i-6=the  altar  of  incense  Ex.  xxx.  27,  xxxi.  8, 
XXXV.  15,  xxxvii.  25  =  the  altar  of  gold  Ex.  xxxix.  38, 
xl.  5,  26,  Nu.  iv.  ii=the  altar  of  sweet  incense  Lv. 
iv.  7  ;  these  altars  are  known  elsewhere  only  in  Chr.;  I 
Ch.  vi.  34,  xvi.  40,  xxi.  29;  2  Ch.  i.  5,  6. 

(5).  There  is  also  a  development  of  the  sacred  tent.  This 
is  named,  TJie  tent  of  meeting  of  God  with  his  people 
(tent  of  congregation  or  assembly  Ges.  M.V.  al.).  Accord- 
ing to  E,  Moses  so  called  the  tent  which  he  used  to  pitch 
without  the  camp,  afar  off,  into  which  he  used  to  enter, 
and  where  God  spake  with  him  face  to  face,  Ex.  xxxiii. 
7-«ii,  Nu.  xii.  5,  ID,  Dt.  xxxi.  14,  15.  J  seems  to  have 
some  conception  of  a  tent  of  meeting  outside  the  camp, 
Nu.  xi.  24,  26  ;  D  has  no  allusion  to  such  a  tent ;  P  men- 
tions it  131  t.  as  "the  tent  of  meeting";  igt.as  ''  the  tent" 
(cf.  Ez.  xli.  i)  and  tent  of  the  testimony  Nu.  ix.  15,  xvii.  22, 
23,  xviii.  2  (as  containing  ark  and  tables  of  the  testimony) 
cf.  2  Ch.  xxiv.  6,  this  tent  sometimes  confounded  with  the 
tabernacle,  but  distinguished  in  "tabernacle  of  the  tent 
of  meeting"  Ex.  xxxix.  32,  xl.  2,  6,  29,  cf.  i  Ch.  vi.  17 ; 
"the  ta'bernacle  and  the  tent  "  Nu.  iii.  25  ;  "the  taber- 
nacle and  the  tent"  Ex.  xxxv.  1 1.  The  tent  was  of  three 
layers  of  skins,  goatskins,  ramskins,  and  tachash  skins, 
each  layer  of  eleven  pieces  stretched  in  the  form  of  a  tent, 
covering  and  protecting  the  tabernacle,  which  was  in  the 
form  of  a  parallelopip.  (Ex.  xxvi.).  A  tent  of  meeting.a..^- 
was  at  Shilo  i  Sam.  ii.  22  (omitted  in  LXX.,  Vulg.)  cf.  Ps.  ^  ^^' 
Ixxviii.  60,  called  "tent  of  Joseph"  V.  67.  The  tent  of  meet- 
ing was  later  at  Gibeon  2  Ch.  i.  3,  6,  13  ;  courses  of  ministry 
were  arranged  for  service  at  the  "  tent  of  meeting  "  i  Ch. 
vi.  17,  xxiii.  32,  cf.  i  Ch.  ix.  19  (the  tent)  v.  2[,  23  "  house 
of  the  tent ";   David  erected  a  tent  for  ark  on   Mount 


104  THE  HEXATEUCH 

Zion  2  Sam.  vi.  17,  i  Ch.  xv.  i,  xvi.  i,  2  Ch.  i.  4;  Joab 
fled  for  refuge  to  the  tent  of  Yahvveh  i  K.  ii.  28-30; 
sacred  oil  was  brought  from  the  tent  i  K.  i.  39 ;  the  tent 
of  meeting  was  taken  up  into  temple  i  K  viii.  4=2  Ch.  v. 
5  ;  Yahweh  had  not  previously  dwelt  in  a  house,  but  had 
gone  from  toit  to  tent,  from  one  to  another,  i  Ch.  xvii.  5, 
cf.  2  Sam.  vii.  6. 

(6).  There  is  development  in  the  conception  of  the 
priesthood.  In  the  blessing  of  Moses  the  tribe  of  Levi 
was  chosen  to  bear  the  Urim  and  Thummin,  to  teach  Is- 
rael, to  burn  incense  and  sacrifice.  (Dt.  xxxiii.  8-1 1.) 
According  to  E,  in  the  covenant  of  Horeb,  Israel  became  a 
kingdom  of  priests.  (Ex.  xix.  5,  6.)  At  the  covenant  sac- 
rifice Moses  selected  young  men  to  assist  him,  showing 
that  there  were  no  official  priests  at  that  time.  (Ex.  xxiv. 
5.)  But  priests  bore  the  ark  and  the  sacred  trumpets 
at  Jericho.  (Josh.  iv.  9;  vi.  4.)  According  to  J,  priests 
draw  near  to  Yahweh  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xix.  22),  showing  a 
priesthood  at  that  date,  an  important  difference  of  con- 
ception from  E.  At  the  conquest  priests  bear  the  ark. 
(Jos.  iii.  6;  iv.  3.)  According  to  D,  the  tribe  of  Levi 
was  separated  to  be  the  priestly  tribe  to  bear  the  ark,  to 
stand  before  Yahweh,  to  minister  in  his  name,  and  to 
bless  the  people.  (Dt.  x.  8,  9;  xxxi.  9;  Jos.  iii.  3;  vi. 
6;  xiii.  33  ;  xviii.  7.)  P  has  an  entirely  different  legisla- 
tion respecting  the  priesthood.  It  gives  an  account  of 
the  consecration  and  ordination  of  the  Levites  as  priests, 
in  substitution  for  the  first-born  sons,  and  then  of  the 
consecration  of  an  Aaronic  priesthood  ;  and  of  a  high 
priesthood,  each  of  the  three  grades  with  its  distinguish- 
ing dress,  and  correspondingly  discriminated  duties. 

(7).  The  sacrificial  system  shows  a  development  in  sev- 
eral stages.  JE  in  their  codes  and  histories  frequently 
use  the  whole  burnt-offering,  and  the  peace-offering,  the 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES  ^05 

fundamental  sacrifices,  also  the  first  fruits  and  firstlin^^s.  E 
gives  an  account  of  the  national  sacrifice  at  the  ratification 
of  the  covenant  at  Horeb  (Ex.  xxiv.),  and  mentions  the 
drink-offering  of  Jacob.  (Gen.  xxxv.  14.)  J  distinguishes 
between  the  clean  and  the  unclean  of  animals  as  dating 
from  the  sacrifice  of  Noah,  uses  Minchah  as  a  general 
name  for  both  the  sacrifice  of  sheep  and  fruit  in  the 
story  of  Cain  and  Abel,  but  in  the  covenant  code  as  a 
name  for  the  offering  of  unleavened  bread.  J  also  gives 
a  law  for  the  passover  victim  which  seems  unknown  to  E. 
D  enlarges  the  scope  of  the  offerings  mentioned  in  J  E. 
It  uses  the  whole  burnt-offering,  peace-offerings  and 
firstlings  of  J  E  and  the  passover  victim  of  J.  But  in 
addition  it  uses  the  term  *'  offerings  of  Yahweh  made 
by  fire,"  and  gives  the  votive  offerings,  free-will  offerings 
and  heave-offerings.  It  also  prohibits  the  offering  of 
children  in  whole  burnt-offering,  a  prohibition  apparently 
unknown  to  J  E  and  the  earlier  history. 

P  now  gives  an  elaborate  system  of  sacrifices  and  pre- 
cise rules  for  their  observance.  All  the  terms  of  the 
offerings  of  JED  appear,  and  many  new  ones.  (1)  "IQ^ip 
is  commonly  employed  for  offerings  of  material  things. 
(2).  The  sin-offering  is  in  three  stages  as  it  purifies  the 
three  altars  in  its  gradations  of  access  to  the  divine  pres- 
ence. (3).  The  trespass-offering  is  in  three  varieties  for 
the  ordinary  person,  the  Nazarite,  and  the  leper.  (4). 
The  development  of  the  peace-offerings  into  the  votive 
offering,  the  free-will  offering,  the  thank-offering,  is  evi- 
dent as  well  as  the  ordinary  peace-offering.  (5).  The  spec- 
ial sacrifice  of  the  ram  of  consecration  at  the  installation 
of  the  priesthood  is  mentioned.  These  sacrifices,  peculiar 
to  the  priest-code,  involve  an  extensive  list  of  phrases 
which  are  unknown  to  the  other  codes.* 


c.  g.  Xlin  is  used  in  Gen.  xxxi.  39  (,E),  in  the  primitive  meaning  of  "  bear 


IQQ  THE  HEXATEUCH 

(8).  According  to  the  covenant  code  the  men  of  Israel 
are  holy  and  are  not  to  cat  of  flesh  torn  off  beasts  in  the 
field,  they  are  to  cast  it  to  the  dogs.  (Ex.  xxii.  3r.)  In 
D  an  animal  that  died  of  itself  might  be  given  to  the 
stranger  to  eat,  and  sold  to  the  foreigners.  (Dt.  xiv.  21.) 
In  H  these  carcasses  could  not  be  eaten  by  home- 
born  or  stranger.  (Lev.  xvii.  15,  16.)  In  P  the  distinc- 
tion between  home-born  and  stranger  has  passed  away, 
and  the  prohibition  is  universal.  (Lev.  xi.  39,  40.)  Sev- 
eral generations  are  necessary  to  account  for  such  a 
series  of  modifications  of  the  same  law.  This  is  only  an 
incident  of  the  development  of  the  legislation  under  the 
head  of  Purifications.  The  Deuteronomic  code  forbids 
to  cut  oneself,  distinguishes  the  clean  from  the  unclean 
animals  (xiv.  3-21),  and  prescribes  washing  with  water 
for  uncleanness  (xxiii.  10  sq.).  The  priest-code  gives  an 
extended  series  of  purifications  in  the  varied  use  of  pure 
water,  and  by  the  use  of  ashes  of  the  red  heifer  (Lev. 
xii.,  XV.,  Num.  xix.),  and  of  various  ingredients  in  the 
healing  of  the  leper  (Lev.  xiii.-xiv.). 

(9).  T/ie  Feasts.  The  Covenant-code  ordains  the  Sab- 
bath, feasts  of  unleavened  bread,  harvest  and  ingather- 
ings, and  the  seventh  year.  (Ex.  xxiii.  10-17.)  The 
Deuteronomic  code  mentions  the  Passover,  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread,  feast  of  weeks,  feast  of  tabernacles,  and 
year  of  release.  (Deut.  xv.,  xvi.)  The  priest-code  gives 
a  complete  cycle  of  feasts  (Lev.  xxiii. ;  Num.  xxviii.), 
new  moons.  Sabbaths,  the  seven  great  Sabbaths,  Pass- 
over and  unleavened  bread,  day  of  first  fruits,  feast  of 


loss,"  but  in  P  it  means  only  to  make  a  sin-offering  or  to  purify  from  sin  or  un- 
cleanness. It  is  characteristic  of  H  and  P  that  D'^OPC^  defines  fl^T  in  the  con- 
struct singular  or  plural  in  a  number  of  phrases  used  with  great  frequency.  In  P 
it  is  distinguished  from  nmj  and  D'^llJ  but  not  from  min,  and  therefore  prob- 
ably is  interchangeable  with  miD  • 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES        107 

trumpets,  day  of  atonement,  tabernacles,  the  seventh 
year's  feast,  the  year  of  Jubilee, — a  most  artistic  system.''" 
It  will  be  observed  that  these  variations  are  in  the 
^//r/r/"  features  of  the  ceremonial  system.  They  present 
the  appearance  of  development  from  the  more  simple 
to  the  complex,  and  in  the  order,  Covenant  codes,  Deu- 
teronomic  code,  code  of  Holiness,  and  priest-code.  The 
traditional  theory  is  certainly  at  fault  here  in  regarding 
the  Deuteronomic  legislation  as  secondary  over  against 
the  priest-code  as  primary.  The  Deuteronomic  code  is 
secondary  to  the  Covenant  codes,  but  not  to  the  priest- 
code.  This  fault  of  the  traditional  theory  had  not  been 
overcome  by  the  theories  of  Eichhorn,  Geddes  or  De 
Wette.  Here  is  an  advantage  of  Reuss'  theory  over 
all  previous  ones.  We  must  admit  the  order  of  develop- 
ment. A  code  for  the  elders  and  judges  of  tribes  or 
clans  in  their  various  localities,  a  code  for  the  instruction 
of  the  nation  as  a  whole  in  rhetorical  and  popular  form, 
and  a  code  for  the  priests  from  the  holy  place  as  a 
centre,  in  the  nature  of  the  case  will  show  a  progress 
from  the  simple  to  the  more  and  more  complex  and 
elaborate  in  matters  of  ritualistic  observance.  The 
Covenant  code  of  E  is  a  series  of  decalogues  for  the 
elders  in  the  administration  of  justice  in  various 
localities.  It  is  based  on  the  covenant  at  Horeb 
and  lies  at  the  root  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation. 
It  is  claimed  that  Moses  wrote  such  a  book  of  the 
Covenant.  The  Deuteronomic  code  is  a  people's  code 
in  a  prophetic  form  to  instruct  and  stimulate  the  people 
of  Yahweh  as  an  organic  whole.  It  is  based  on  the 
experience  of  the  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  it  looks 
forward    to  a   prolonged    occupation   of  the  promised 


*  See  Appendix  VI. 


103  THE  HEXATEUCH 

land,  and  is  based  on  a  new  covenant  in  the  plains  of 
Moab.  We  would  expect  to  find  progress  and  develop- 
ment here  especially  on  the  practical  side.  It  is  claimed 
that  Moses  gives  a  law  code  at  this  time ;  and  we  can 
see  no  sufficient  reasons  for  doubting  it.  The  priest- 
code  is  from  the  priestly  point  of  view  in  connection 
with  the  tabernacle  and  its  institutions.  It  will  neces- 
sarily exhibit  progress  and  development  on  tire  technical 
side  in  the  details  of  the  ritual.  This  code  is  scattered 
in  groups  in  the  middle  books,  and  broken  up  by  in- 
sertions of  historical  incidents,  but  when  put  together 
exhibits  an  organic  whole,  a  unity  and  symmetry  which 
is  wonderful  in  connection  with  the  attention  given  to 
details.  This  code  is  represented  as  given  by  Yahweh 
to  Moses  or  Aaron,  or  both,  but  it  is  not  represented  as 
written  down  by  Moses  as  is  the  case  with  the  two 
other  codes.  It  claims  to  be  Mosaic  legislation,  but  if 
we  should  suppose  that  later  priests  gathered  the  de- 
tailed laws  and  groups  of  laws  into  codes  at  any  times 
subsequent  to  the  conquest,  this  claim  would  be  satis- 
fied. This  collection  of  laws  contains  an  earlier  separate 
code  called  the  code  of  Holiness.  It  may  also  contain 
other  such  codes  yet  to  be  determined  by  criticism,  all 
constituent  sources  of  the  present  priest-code  and  going 
back  through  several  codifications  to  primitive  times. 

There  are  several  obstacles  which  have  been  proposed 
to  the  composition  of  the  priestly  legislation  in  the  post- 
exilic  period:  (i).  The  language  of  the  Elohist  and  the 
priest-code  is  classic.  The  discussions  respecting  the 
language  of  the  Elohist  have  proved  marked  differences 
from  the  other  documents,  but  they  have  not  proved 
any  such  deflection  in  the  syntax  of  the  zuaw  consec,  and 
the  multiplication  of  nouns  formed  by  affixes  as  charac- 
terize Ezekiel.     And  yet  the  word-lists  show  closer  re- 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  CODES        1QQ 

semblance  between  the  priestly  code  and  Ezckiel  than 
between  that  code  and  any  earlier  writer. 

(2).  The  priest-code  is  a  unit  in  its  wonderful  variety 
of  detail.  Given  the  ark  of  the  covenant  as  the  throne 
of  Yahweh,  the  King  of  Israel,  the  holy  God,  and  all 
the  institutions,  and  the  ritual,  seem  to  be  the  most  ap- 
propriate elaboration  of  that  one  idea.  They  are  wrapt 
up  in  the  idea  itself  as  a  germ.  Why  should  it  require 
centuries  for  the  development  of  the  germ  into  its  legiti- 
mate flowers  and  fruit  ?  An  idea  like  that  would  be 
more  than  seed-corn  to  Israel  in  the  wilderness.  We 
would  expect  some  such  practical  development  as  we 
do  find  in  the  priest's  code  at  the  time.  Such  a  specu- 
lative development  is  possible.  But  is  it  so  probable 
as  a  practical  development,  finding  expression  in  appro- 
priate legislation?  The  unity  may  come  from  the 
priestly  compiler  and  express  the  unification  of  historic 
experience. 

(3).  The  priest-code  is  realistic,  and  its  realism  is  that 
of  the  wilderness,  of  the  wanderings  and  the  nomadic  life. 
This  is  so  inextricably  involved  with  the  ideal  in  all 
parts  of  the  legislation,  so  simple,  artless,  and  inartistic, 
that  it  seems  unlikely  that  it  should  be  pure  invention, 
or  the  elaboration  of  an  ideal  which  could  not  escape 
anachronisms  in  some  particulars.  But  if  the  funda- 
mental legislation  is  Mosaic,  why  might  not  the  priestly 
compiler,  taking  his  stand  in  the  wilderness  of  the  wan- 
derings, have  been  true  to  his  historic  and  ideal  stand- 
point ?  And  then  there  are  apparently  anachronisms 
as  has  been  pointed  out  by  several  critics.* 


■'''See  Westphal,  Les  Sources  des  Peiiiateuque^  ii.  pp.  321  seq. 


XL 


THE   WITNESS   OF  THE   HISTORY. 

I. — Discrepancy  betiveen  the  Codes  and  the  History. 

It  must  be  admitted  by  the  candid  investigator  of 
the  Scriptures  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  between  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  and  the  history  and  literature 
of  Israel  prior  to  the  exile.  It  extends  through  the 
most  important  laws  of  the  ritual.  It  is  two-fold  :  that 
of  silence  on  the  one  side,  and  that  of  unconscious  and 
uncondemned  violation  on  the  other.  In  the  period  of 
the  Judges  there  are  many  altars  besides  the  altar  at 
Shiloh,  where  the  ark  and  the  tent  of  meeting  were 
situated.  These  altars  were  erected  in  places  conse- 
crated by  Theophanies  in  accordance  with  the  Covenant 
code  and  in  violation  of  the  Deuteronomic  code  and 
priests'  code.  The  sacrifices  were  offered  by  laymen, 
such  as  Joshua  and  Gideon  at  Ebal  (Jos.  viii.  30)  ;  at 
Mispeh  in  Perea  (Judges  xi.  11);  at  Bochim  (Judges 
ii.  5);  at  Ophra  (vi.  24);  at  Mispeh  in  Benjamin  (xxi.  8); 
and  elsewhere  (Judges  xiii.  19),  This  is  a  violation  of 
the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code,  but  not  of  the 
covenant  code. 

Dr.  Green  explains  these  violations  thus  :  "  In  every 
such  instance  sacrifices  were  offered  on  the  spot  by  those 
to  whom  the  Lord  thus  appeared  ;  and  in  the  absence 
(no) 


THE   WITNESS   OF  THE  HISTORY  m 

of  such  a  Thcophany,  sacrifices  were  never  offered  except 
at  Shiloh  or  in  the  presence  of  the  ark  and  by  priests  of 
the  house  of  Aaron."  This  explanation  does  not  satisfy 
us  for  these  reasons  :  (i)  These  transactions  are  no  more 
than  the  Covenant-code  requires.  (2)  They  indicate  a 
practice  identical  with  that  of  the  patriarchs.  The  Deu- 
teronomic  code  and  priest-code  required  a  change  in  the 
earlier  practice.  Why  were  these  two  great  codes  trans- 
gressed by  the  judges  under  the  influence  of  the  divine 
Spirit  ?  (3)  The  ark  of  the  Covenant,  according  to  the 
priest-code,  was  the  permanent  place  of  divine  Theoph- 
any.  Why  was  this  forsaken  by  Yahvveh  Himself  in 
violation  of  His  own  law,  and  why  did  He  encourage 
the  chiefs  of  the  nation  to  violate  the  law?  Why  did 
Ydhweh  Himself  permit  His  one  altar  and  sanctuary 
and  the  legitimate  Aaronic  priesthood  to  be  so  neglected 
and  dishonored?  (4)  The  statement  that  the  sacrifices 
were  never  offered  except  at  Shiloh  or  in  the  presence  of 
the  ark  and  by  priests  of  the  house  of  Aaron,  except  at 
the  times  specified,  rests  upon  no  other  evidence  than 
silence^  which  may  count  equally  well  on  the  other  side, 
since  that  which  is  mentioned  as  having  been  done  sev- 
eral times  may  be  presumed,  with  no  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  to  have  been  done  at  other  times.  Moreover, 
the  silence  of  the  history  as  to  any  national  habitual  wor- 
ship at  Shiloh  as  the  one  only  legitimate  altar  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code,  seems 
rather  to  count  against  such  a  thing.  For  the  neglect  of 
the  sanctuary  at  Shiloh  does  not  seem  from  the  narra- 
tives extraordinary  or  abnormal. 

According  to  the  history  of  this  period  the  sacrifices 
are  peace-offerings  and  burnt-offerings  of  the  Covenant 
code,  but  no  offerings  peculiar  to  the  Deuteronomic 
code,  no  sin  and  trespass  offerings  of  the  priests'   code. 


112  '''HE  HEXATEUCH 

There  are  simple  ceremonial  washings,  but  none  of  the 
peculiar  Levitical  purifications.  The  Passover  was  once 
kept  (Josh.  V.  lo)  and  an  animal  feast  at  Shiloh  (Judges 
xxi.  19),  but  there  is  no  mention  of  any  of  the  feasts 
peculiar  to  the  priests'  code.  The  ark  of  the  Covenant, 
the  tent  of  meeting,  and  the  Nazarite  vow*  are  dif- 
ferent from  these  things  as  presented  in  the  priest-code. 
In  the  time  of  Samuel  a  similar  state  of  affairs  is  dis- 
covered. Sacrifices  are  offered  by  Samuel,  tribal  chiefs, 
and  Saul  at  various  places:  at  Mispeh  (i  Sam.  vii.  5), 
at  Ramah  (i  Sam.  vii.  17),  at  Gilgal  (i  Sam.  x.  8,  xi.  15, 
XV.  21-33),  ^t  Zuph  (i  Sam.  ix.  12  sq.),  at  Bethlehem  (i 
Sam.  xvi.  4-5),  at  Michmash  (i  Sam.  xiv.  35).  The  sac- 
rifices are  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings.  The  puri- 
fications are  by  simple  washing  with  water.  The  only 
feast  mentioned  is  an  annual  one  at  Bethlehem  (i  Sam. 
XX.  6).  On  the  other  hand,  the  ark  of  the  Covenant 
comes  into  prominence  as  vindicating  its  sanctity  wher- 
ever it  was  carried.  It  was  captured  by  the  Philistines 
and  taken  from  Shiloh  into  their  own  country,  but  sub- 
sequently returned  and  placed  under  the  charge  of  Le- 
vitical priests  at  Kirjath-Jearim,  where  it  remained  twenty 
years  (i  Sam.  v.-vii.).  This  hill  is  called  the  hill  of  God, 
and  had  its  high  place,  whither  pilgrimages  were  made 
(i  Sam.  X.  5).  Nob  also  was  a  holy  place  where  the 
priests  dwelt,  having  the  tent  of  meeting,  shew-bread, 
and  ephod  (i  Sam.  xxi.  9).  The  Urim  and  Thummim 
was  also    consulted.     These   are   sacred    things  of   the 


*  The  Nazarite  Samson  abstains  from  wine,  and  from  eatinq;  unclean  thinps, 
and  from  cutting  the  hair  (Ju.  xiii.  4-5),  but  he  uses  the  jawbone  of  an  ass  as  a 
weapon  to  destroy  his  enemies  (Ju.  xiv.  15-20),  in  violation  of  the  law  of  the 
Nazarite  in  the  priests'  code,  which  forbids  the  Nazarite  from  coming  in  contact 
with  a  dead  body.  It  is  sufficient  to  read  the  law  of  Num.  vi.  to  see  that  Sam- 
son was  a  very  different  kind  of  Nazarite  from  that  contemplated  in  the  priests 
code. 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY  II3 

priest-codc.  They  imply  a  use  of  these  things  at  this 
time,  but  do  not  imply  a  use  of  the  priest-code  ;  for 
they  are  in  a  different  form  and  of  a  different  character 
from  that  in  which  they  appear  in  the  priest-code.  Sam- 
uel and  the  nation  as  a  whole  neglected  the  ark  of  the 
Covenant,  the  tent  of  meeting,  and  the  priesthood  at  Nob, 
in  violation  of  the  priest-code  and  Deuteronomic  code. 

Dr.  Green  thus  explains  these  things  :  "  During  all  this 
period  of  sad  degeneracy  and  earnest  labors  for  Israel's 
reformation,  Samuel  prayed  for  the  people  and  pleaded 
with  them  and  led  their  worship.  He  sacrificed  at  Mis- 
peh,  at  Gilgal,  at  Ramah,  at  Bethel  (possibly),  and  at 
Bethlehem,  but  never  once  at  Kirjath-Jcarim.  He  never 
assembled  the  people  at  or  near  the  house  of  Abinidab. 
He  never  took  measures  to  have  the  ark  present  at  any 
assembly  of  the  people  or  upon  any  occasion  of  sacrifice. 
The  Lord  had  not  indicated  His  will  to  establish  another 
sanctuary  where  He  might  record  His  name  in  place  of 
Shiloh,  which  he  had  forsaken."^ 

This  explanation  seems  to  us  invalid  for  these  rea- 
sons:  (i)  According  to  the  priest-code  the  ark  of  the 
Covenant  was  the  throne  of  Yahweh,  and  it  alone  gave 
the  place  where  it  rested  sanctity.  Shiloh  was  a  holy 
place  only  so  long  as  the  ark  was  there.  Wherever  it 
went  it  made  a  holy  place.  So  the  hill  Kirjath-Jearim 
became  holy  and  the  house  of  God  so  long  as  the  ark 
was  there.  As  we  interpret  i  Sam.  x.,  this  place  is 
called  the  hill  of  God  and  house  of  God,  and  pilgrimages 
were  made  thither  for  worship  by  bands  of  prophets. 
But  if  Dr.  Green's  interpretation  of  this  passage  be  cor- 
rect and  Bethel  is  the  hill  of  God,  then,  according  to  this 
passage,  it  is  a  place  of  pilgrimage  and  worship  rather 


Moses  and  the  Prophets^  T882,  p.   150. 


11^  THE  TIEXATEUCH 

tlian  the  place  of  the  ark,  a  still  more  flagrant  violation 
of  the  priest-code.  And  if  we  do  not  find  worship  at 
Kirjath-Jearim  here,  what  evidence  is  there  save  silence, 
that  Samuel  and  the  people  did  not  resort  thither  for 
worship  as  well  as  to  other  places  ?  (2)  But  why  did 
Samuel,  the  fearless  reformer,  so  neglect  the  priest-code 
and  Deuteronomic  code  while  the  ark  remained  for 
twenty  years  within  easy  access  at  Kirjath-Jearim?   f^     V^-- 

Advancing  into  the  period  of  the  Kings  we  find  the 
worship  at  the  high  places  continues.  David  brought 
up  the  ark  of  the  Covenant  to  Zion  and  erected  a  new 
tent  for  it  (2  Sam.  vi.  1-17).  He  also  erected  an  altar, 
and  sacrificed  on  Mt.  Moriah,  the  site  of  the  temple. 
The  offerings  are  whole  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offer- 
ings. The  purifications  are  not  indicated  ;  the  feasts  are 
the  Sabbaths,  new  moons,  and  other  festivals  not  speci- 
fied. We  note  the  presence  of  the  brazen  altar,  the 
tabernacle  of  Yahweh,  the  tent  of  meeting  and  theshew- 
bread,  of  the  priest-code,  in  the  Chronicler  (i  Chron.  xv. 
17,  xvi.  39,  40,  xxi.  29,  xxiii.  29);  but  the  other  WTiters 
knew  nothing  of  these  things. 

The  erection  of  the  temple  of  Solomon  concentrated 
the  worship  of  the  people  at  Jerusalem,  but  did  not  do 
away  with  the  worship  on  high  places  or  bring  about  a 
general  recognition  of  the  Deuteronomic  code.  The 
offerings  are  confined  to  whole  burnt-offerings  and  peace- 
offerings.  The  Levitical  purifications  are  not  mentioned. 
The  Chronicler  mentions  the  celebration  of  the  Sabbath, 
new  moons,  and  three  great  feasts,  (unleavened  bread, 
feast  of  weeks,  and  especially  tabernacles  2  Chron.  vii. 
8-10;  viii.  3.);  and  that  the  temple  and  its  priesthood 
were  organized  in  accordance  with  a  plan  given  by  God 
to  David  (i  Chron.  xxviii.  19);  but  these  things  are  un- 
known to  the  prophetic  histories. 


THE   WITNESS  OF  THE    HISTORY  \{^ 

Taking  our  stand  here  by  the  temple  of  Solomon  and 
looking  back  through  the  previous  history  to  the  con- 
quest, we  note  a  constant  transgression  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code  and  priests'  code,  or  rather  an  apparent 
unconsciousness  of  their  existence.  And  yet  some  of  the 
most  essential  things  of  the  priest-code  are  mentioned  by 
the  Chronicler.  These  cannot  be  explained  by  the  theory 
of  the  school  of  Reuss.  The  way  that  Kucnen  and  Well- 
hausen  meet  the  difficulty  is  hardly  creditable  to  their 
fairness  and  good  judgment.  We  cannot  consent  to  the 
denial  of  the  historical  sense  of  the  Chronicler  for  the  sake 
of  any  theory.  We  might  conceive  that  the  tabernacle 
was  an  idealizing  of  the  temple  in  accordance  with  the 
difference  between  the  nomadic  life  and  the  settled  life 
of  the  holy  land,  if  there  were  any  propriety  in  this 
idealization  under  the  circumstances.  We  have  a  brill- 
iant example  of  the  power  of  the  imagination  of  a 
prophet  in  such  an  artistic  elaboration  and  detailed  rep- 
resentation in  Ezekiel  xl.-xlviii.  Ezekiel's  imagination 
goes  forth  into  the  future  and  from  the  river  Chebar  to 
the  Holy  Land.  We  cannot  therefore  deny  the  possi- 
bility of  such  a  prophet  as  Ezekiel  constructing  an  ideal 
of  legislation  in  the  wilderness  with  all  its  details.  And 
yet  it  seems  arbitrary  for  the  school  of  Reuss  to  make 
Ezekiel's  legislation  a  programme  and  that  of  Exodus 
an  idealization.  There  is  propriety  in  the  representation 
of  Ezekiel  in  taking  the  Holy  Land  as  the  site  of  his 
temple  and  institution.  But  there  is  no  propriety  in 
the  supposed  post-exilic  author  of  the  middle  books  tak- 
ing the  wilderness  and  the  nomadic  life  as  the  scene  of 
his  legislation.  He  would  rather  from  the  necessities  of 
the  case  have  followed  the  Deuteronomist  and  Ezekiel, 
and  have  legislated  in  his  programme  for  the  Holy 
Land.     There  must  be  some  substantial  basis  in  the  his- 


IIQ  THE  HEXATEUCH 

tory  for  his  representation.  This,  however,  does  not 
force  us  to  think  of  the  antiquity  of  our  present  priests' 
code,  but  only  of  the  antiquity  of  those  laws  and  insti- 
tutions in  it  which  are  ascribed  to  the  earlier  times. 
The  Davndic  legislation  and  the  organization  of  the 
temple  service  point  backward  to  the  simpler  Mosaic 
legislation  of  which  it  is  an  elaboration.  The  temple 
of  Solomon  is  easier  to  explain  on  the  basis  of  the 
tabernacle  of  Moses  than  the  latter  on  the  basis  of  the 
former. 

But  notwithstanding  all  this  concentration  of  worship, 
the  Deuteronomic  code  is  not  fulfilled  by  the  doing 
away  of  high  places  and  sacrifices  thereon.  The  sacri- 
fices of  sin  and  trespass-offerings,  the  purifications  and 
the  feasts  of  the  priest-code  do  not  appear.  The  Da- 
vidic  legislation  is  thus  at  an  angle  with  the  Penta- 
teuchal ;  being  on  the  one  side  an  advance,  and  on  the 
other  a  remarkable  falling  behind  the  requirements  of 
the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code,  which  cannot 
be  accounted  for  if  they  were  taken  as  the  basis  of  the 
Davidic  constitution,  or  if  they  had  been  in  general  ob- 
servance since  the  conquest. 

The  rupture  of  the  nation  after  the  death  of  Solomon 
rendered  the  observance  of  the  Davidic  constitution  as 
well  as  the  priest-code  and  Deuteronomic  code  an  im- 
possibility for  the  northern  kingdom.  Ancestral  w^orship 
on  high  places  is  conducted  by  Elijah  on  Carmel  and 
by  others  at  various  altars.  In  Judah  itself  it  continued 
as  the  prevailing  mode  of  worship,  save  for  the  spas- 
modic efforts  of  Hezekiah  and  Josiah,  until  after  the  exile 
of  the  northern  kingdom.  This  worship  on  high  places 
even  survives  the  destruction  of  the  temple  at  Jerusa- 
lem, and  we  find  a  company  of  pilgrims  resorting  to  the 
ancient  sanctuary  at   Mispeh  (Jer.  xli.  5   sq.)  after  the 


THE   WITNESS  OF   THE   HISTORY  II7 

overthrow  of  the  nation.  Dr.  Green  explains  these 
things  thus:  "The  worship  on  liigh  places  was  irreg- 
ular and  illegal  after  the  temple  was  built  ;  but  the  fact 
that  they  were  tolerated  by  pious  princes,  who  contented 
themselves  with  abolishing  the  emblems  and  practice  of 
idolatry  found  there,  only  shows  that  they  did  not  do 
their  whole  duty — not  that  the  law  which  had  ruled 
ever  since  the  days  of  Moses  did  not  exist.  They  may 
very  easily  have  persuaded  themselves  that  the  spirit  of 
the  law  was  maintained  if  only  the  abuses  were  recti- 
fied ;  that  if  God  was  sincerely  and  piously  worshipped 
in  these  local  sanctuaries,  there  could  not  be  much  harm 
in  suffering  them  to  remain."  This  explanation  is  not 
satisfactory.  For  (i)  it  is  an  unlikely  supposition  that 
these  pious  princes  so  neglected  a  well-known  duty.  (2) 
It  assumes  that  the  law  ruled  from  the  days  of  Moses, 
which  is  the  reverse  of  the  facts.  (3)  It  assumes  that 
these  pious  princes  presumed  to  please  God  by  neglect- 
ing the  prescriptions  of  the  law  and  recognizing  true 
worship  against  the  law. 

Looking  now  at  the  testimony  of  Hebrew  Literature 
with  reference  to  the  offerings,  the  purifications,  and  the 
feasts  of  the  priest-code,  these  are  conspicuous  by  their 
absence  prior  to  the  exile  The  sin-offering  first  and 
alone  appears  in  the  pre-exilic  history  in  the  reform  of 
Hezekiah  according  to  the  Chronicler  (2  Chron.  xxix. 
20-24).  It  is  not  found  in  the  pre-exilic  prophets,  or  in 
the  entire  Psalter  save  possibly  the  exilic  Ps.  xl. ;  or  in 
the  ethical  writings.  In  pre-exilic  writings  the  trespass- 
offering  is  not  found.  It  first  occurs  in  the  exilic  Isaiah 
liii. ;  the  Levitical  purifications  are  not  mentioned  ;  the 
feasts  of  the  priest-code  do  not  appear.  - 

*With  reference  to  this  sin-offering  of  Hezekiah,  one  can  see  no  evidence  that  it 
was  offered  in  accordance  with  the  ritual  of  the  sin-offering,  Lev.  iv.   13.  jy, 


IIQ  THE   HEXATEUCH 

What,  then,  are  we  to  conclude  from  these  facts  ?  The 
traditional  theory  was  not  designed  to  account  for  them. 
The  theory  of  Reuss  was  constructed  in  order  to  account 
for  them  on  the  ground  that  the  codes  did  not  come 
into  existence  until  they  are  recognized  in  the  literature 
and  the  history  of  Israel.  The  traditional  theory  is 
against  the  facts  so  far  as  it  is  claimed  by  Marsh,  Home, 
and  others,  that  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  was  ob- 
served in  Israel  from  the  conquest  to  the  exile,  the  in- 
fractions being  only  occasional.  On  the  other  hand  the 
evidence  is  invincible  from  silence  and  repeated  instances 
of  infraction  in  unconscious  innocence  and  uncondemned, 
that  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  not  so  observed. 

II.  —  The  zvitness  of  the  Literature  as  to  non-observance 
of  the  Law. 

There  is  also  abundant  evidence  from  positive  state- 
ments in  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  that  the 


where  the  blood  must  be  sprinkled  before  Yahweh,  and  put  some  of  it  upon  the 
horns  of  the  altar  of  incense  and  all  the  rest  poured  out  at  the  base  of  the  altar 
of  burnt-offering.  The  ritual  seems  rather  to  be  similar  to  that  of  the  burnt- 
offering  (Lev.  i.),  where  the  blood  is  scattered  upon  the  altar  (comp  2  Chron. 
xxix.  22  and  Lev.  i.  5).  We  find  in  (2  Kings  xii.  16)  in  the  reign  of  Joash 
that  sin  and  trespass  money  was  given  to  the  priests  as  a  fine  or  compensa- 
tion for  neglected  duties,  which  corresponds  with  the  law  of  tlie  sin-offering 
that  the  flesh  goes  to  the  priests,  but  there  \\  no  victim  here,  and  hence  no  cor- 
respondence with  the  priest-code.  The  attempt  of  Delitzsch  [Pettf.  Krit.  Stu- 
dieti^  p.  9),  to  find  a  sin-offering  in  Hos.  iv.  8  (followed  by  Keil,  Com.  Ezek.  2d 
Auf.,  p.  21),  is  a  novel  explanation  of  the  passage  and  against  the  context.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  passage,  Micah  vi.  7.  They  arc  properly  rendered  in  the  A.  V. : 
"sin  of  my  people,"  parallel  with  '•  iniquity,"  and  "  sin  of  my  soul,"  parallel 
with  "my  transgression."  The  supposed  sin-offering  of  the  Psalm  xL,  is  amis- 
taken  rendering  of  a  noun  which  here  as  everywhere  else  should  be  rendered 
"sin."  The  trespass-offering  of  Isaiah  liii.  10  is  the  sacrifice  of  the  Messianic 
servant  consisting  of  himself.  This  undoubtedly  presupposes  a  victim  in  the  tres- 
pass-offering, but  inasmuch  as  all  critics  agree  that  the  second  half  of  Isaiah  is 
exilic,  that  passage  cannot  help  us  to  prove  it  a  pre-exilic  trespass-offering. 


TFIE    WITNESS  OF  THE    HISTORY  ^JQ 

Legislation  of  tlic  Pentateuch  was  not  observed  in  the 
historic  Hfe  of  the  Hebrew  people. 

(i).  The  prophet  Amos  (v.  25)  represent^,  that  during 
the  forty  years  wanderings,  Israel  did  not  offer  burnt- 
offerings  and  peace-offerings  to  Yahweh.  This  corre- 
sponds with  the  statement  Josh.  v.  5,  that  circumcision 
had  been  neglected  so  that  an  entire  generation  had  to 
be  circumcised  at  Gilgal,  after  the  entrance  into  Pales- 
tine. Then  the  Passover  was  kept  which  had  likewise 
been  neglected.  The  neglect  of  those  essential  things 
carries  with  it  the  non-observance  of  the  entire  priests' 
code,  for  according  to  that  code  an  uncircumcised  man  or 
one  who  did  not  keep  the  Passover  was  cut  off  from  the 
congregation.  The  period  of  the  Judges  is  character- 
ized by  the  failure  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  and 
by  a  series  of  captivities  under  foreign  oppressors,  dur- 
ing which  tribal  chieftains  and  local  judges  assumed 
the  place  assigned  to  the  Levitical  priesthood  and  to 
the  kings  by  the  Deuteronomic  code. 

How  could  there  be  one  sanctuary  in  the  midst  of  in- 
dependent, hostile,  and  warring  tribes  ?  The  observance 
of  the  Deuteronomic  code  and  priest-code  was  impos- 
sible even  if  they  had  been  in  existence.  The  rally  of 
the  nation  under  Phinehas  against  Benjamin  (Judges  xx,), 
to  avenge  the  wrong  of  the  Levite,  was  the  last  until  the 
revival  of  Samuel,  and  this  is  narrated  in  one  of  the 
latest  documents  of  the  Book.  Indeed,  there  was  no 
nation  as  such  under  Samuel  and  Saul.  It  was  not  until 
David  established  his  throne  in  Jerusalem  and  moved 
the  ark  of  the  Covenant  thither  that  a  political  and  relig- 
ious unity  became  possible.  Then  again  we  see  a  great 
rally  of  the  nation  about  the  ark  and  the  priesthood,  but 
it  would  have  been  impossible  to  overcome  the  worship 
on  high  places  and  ancestral  modes  of  worship,  even  if 


120  THE   HEXATEUCH 

an  attempt  had  been  made  to  execute  such  legislation 
as  is  found  in  D,  H,  and  P.  That  which  could  not  be  ac- 
complished by  David  and  Solomon  became  impossible 
when  Jeroboam  tore  away  the  mass  of  Israel  from  the 
house  of  David.  Nor  could  weakened  Judah,  under  its 
most  pious  kings,  such  as  Jehoshaphat  and  Joash,  do 
more  than  overcome,  in  part,  idolatry  at  the  high  places. 
It  was  not  until  the  reforms  of  Hezekiah  and  especially 
of  Josiah,  that  Israel  for  brief  periods  could  be  brought 
to  the  acceptance  of  the  Deuteronomic  code. 

(2).  And  here  we  meet  the  statement  that  the  Deuter- 
onomic code,  thrown  aside  and  neglected  in  the  temple, 
was  providentially  discovered  and  brought  to  light  as  the 
basis  of  the  reform.  If  the  Deuteronomic  code  could  thus 
be  lost  sight  of,  how  much  more  the  elaborate  and  techni- 
cal priests'  code  if  such  a  code  were  in  existence  ?  We  also 
meet  the  statement  that  the  Passover  had  not  been  ob- 
served in  accordance  with  the  law  from  the  time  of  the 
observance  of  the  Passover  by  Joshua  and  Israel  on  their 
entrance  into  the  holy  land  (Josh  v.)  If  such  an  important 
institution  as  the  Passover  could  have  been  so  neglected 
from  the  conquest  to  the  days  of  Josiah,  how  much 
more  other  institutions  of  Deuteronomy  of  less  funda- 
mental importance? 

(3).  After  a  brief  period  of  reform  under  Josiah,  Judah 
went  into  exile,  and  it  was  not  until  the  return  from 
exile  under  the  more  favorable  circumstances  of  a  small, 
compact  and  select  population,  that  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
could  reform  the  nation  on  the  basis  of  the  priests'  code. 
Here,  again  (Neh.  viii.  17),  we  have  the  statement  that 
the  feast  of  tabernacles  had  not  been  observed  accord- 
ing to  the  priest-code  from  the  time  of  Joshua  onward, 
until  that  occasion.     If  this  be  true  of  this  great  feast. 


THE   WITNESS  OF  THE   HISTORY  ^21 

how  much  more  of  other  feasts  and  institutions  of  the 
priest-code  ? 

(4).  If  we  compare  the  statement  of  the  Chronicler 
2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  with  Jer.  xxv.  11,  12,  and  Lev.  xxvi. 
34  srq.,  it  is  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion  that 
the  non-observance  of  the  Sabbatical  year  of  the  priest- 
code  is  assigned  as  one  of  the  chief  reasons  of  the  exile, 
and  that  the  seventy  years  of  its  duration  have  a  certain 
proportion  of  retribution  in  relation  to  a  long-continued 
series  of  non-observances.  If  now  we  compare  the  law 
of  the  seventh  year  in  the  three  codes,  we  find  a  devel- 
opment from  the  more  simple  provisions  of  Ex.  xxiii. 
10,  II,  through  Deut.  xv.  1-3,  to  Lev.  xxv.  In  this 
latter  passage  the  Sabbatical  feasts  reach  their  culmina- 
tion in  the  year  of  Jubilee.  The  neglect  of  the  seventh 
year  carries  with  it  the  neglect  of  the  Jubilee  year.  In- 
deed, this  elaborate  Sabbatical  system  required  for  its 
fulfilment  a  people  and  a  land  in  an  entirely  different 
situation  from  that  of  Israel  in  the  entire  period  from 
the  conquest  to  the  exile. 

(5).  The  most  sacred  day  of  the  Mosaic  calendar  was 
the  Day  of  Atonement.  On  this  day  the  sin  offering 
attained  its  culmination.  The  sin-offering  of  the  ritual 
for  the  new  moons  and  the  double  sin-offerings  for  the 
great  feasts  reached  their  climax  in  the  goat  for  Azazel 
and  the  goat  for  Yahweh — expressing  the  two  sides  of 
expiation  by  blood  and  of  forgiveness  by  entire  removal. 
It  is  here  a  most  singular  fact  that  in  the  priest-code 
(Lev.  xvi.)  we  have  the  institution  of  the  Day  of  Atone- 
ment and  its  peculiar  sacrifices,  but  nowhere  in  the 
Pentateuch  or  elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament  any 
account  of  the  observance  in  fact.  There  is  no  allusion, 
direct  or  indirect,  to  its  most  solemn  services  in  Hebrew 
history  or  prophecy,  in  sacred  song  or  sentence  of  wis- 


122  THE  HEXATEUCH 

dom.  It  seems  not  to  have  formed  a  part  of  the  historic 
life  and  experience  of  the  people.  The  omission  of  the 
sin-offering  in  its  simpler  form  shows  very  clearly  that 
the  people  of  Israel  had  not  in  their  historical  life  at- 
tained the  religious  experience  that  was  indispensable 
for  an  apprehension  of  the  Day  of  Atonement  and  its 
deep  religious  lessons.  The  historical  realization  first 
appears  in  the  first  century  before  the  advent  of  our 
Saviour."^ 

Thus  comparing  the  codes  with  the  history,  we  must 
regard  them  as  ideals  in  an  ascending  series  from  the 
Covenant  codes  through  the  Deuteronomic  code  to  the 
priests'-code,  which  could  not  be  realized  in  the  historical 
experience  of  the  nation.  If  the  Covenant  code  of  E 
was  based  upon  the  idea  that  Israel  was  a  kingdom  of 
priests,  a  holy  nation,  and  the  Deuteronomic  code  was 
pervaded  with  deep  spiritual  conceptions  of  faith,  love, 
and  absolute  devotion  to  God,  and  if,  in  the  priests'  code, 
the  idea  of  holiness  is  wrought  out  from  the  holy  throne  of 
the  ark  into  all  the  details  of  the  national  life  ;  then  these 
were  beyond  the  experience  of  the  tribes  who  entered  the 
Holy  Land.  In  order  to  its  execution,  the  priests'  code 
required  a  holy  land  under  the  absolute  control  of  a  holy 
people,  all  the  alien  nations  exterminated,  and  every 
impure  influence  banished.  It  required  a  united,  homo- 
geneous people,  living  in  a  land  under  the  protection  of 
the  continued  presence  of  God  in  the  form  of  a  the- 
ophany  enthroned   in  the  throne  room  of  the   Holy  of 


*  Prof.  Delitzsch  discusses  this  subject  in  an  admirable  manner  in  Zcitschri/t 
f.  Kirchliche  lVisse7ischa/t^  1880,  IV.  We  agree  with  him  tliat  the  passages,  1 
Kings  viii.  27,  seq.\  Ezra  iii.  1-6;  Neh.  viii.  13-17;  Ezekiel  xlv.  18-20;  Zech. 
vii.-viii.,  do  not  necessarily  exclude  the  Day  of  Atonement,  but  we  must  go 
further  and  conclude  that  the  most  natural  explanation  of  this  silence  under  the 
circumstances  of  these  passages  is  that  t!ie  Day  of  Atonement  was  not  observed. 


THE   WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY  X23 

Holies  on  the  cherubic  throne  above  the  ark.  It  re- 
quired a  strict  attention  to  all  the  details  of  the  life  as 
to  personal  purity  and  ministry.  The  spirituality  of 
the  Deuteronomic  code  in  its  grand  ideal  was  as  far 
above  Israel  as  a  nation,  as  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in 
John's  gospel  are  above  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
perfect  sanctity  of  the  priests'  code  was  as  far  above 
the  experience  of  Israel  as  a  nation  as  our  Saviour's 
Sermon  on  the  Mount,  and  His  parables  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  are  above  the  experience  of  our  life  as  Chris- 
tians to-day.  This  ideal  and  prophetic  element  of  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  has  been  buried  under  the 
traditional  theories  of  the  Pharisees,  which  have  come 
down  as  a  yoke  of  bondage  and  a  dark  cloud  of  supersti- 
tion to  the  Christian  Church.  Stripping  these  off,  we 
behold  in  the  Pentateuch  vastly  more  than  it  has  been  the 
custom  to  find  there.  We  find  not  only  the  Deuter- 
onomic prediction  of  a  prophet  like  Moses  fulfilled  in 
Jesus  Christ,  but  that  the  whole  law  is  prophetic  of  the 
Gospel.  To  this  the  interpretation  of  the  apostles,  and 
especially  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  pointed  the  Chris- 
tian Church  ;  but  Christian  exegetes  have  been  halting 
on  the  threshold  and  have  not  entered  into  this  grand 
tabernacle  of  prophecy. 

Do  these  codes  lie  at  the  basis  of  the  history  of  Israel 
as  ideals  to  be  realized  in  the  experience  of  the  nation, 
as  the  gospels  lie  at  the  basis  of  Christian  History? 
This  is  the  theory  which  was  proposed  in  1883.  But  a 
more  thorough  study  shows  that  this  theory  does  not 
account  for  all  the  facts  of  the  case.  There  are  evidences 
of  the  presence  from  time  to  time  in  the  history  and  liter- 
ature of  certain  laws  of  D  before  Josiah,  and  of  certain 
laws  of  P  before  Ezra,  but  not  of  these  codes  and  writ- 
ings as  such.     In  general  there  is  silence  as  to  these 


124  THE  HEXATEUCH 

codes  and  there  is  unconscious  infraction  of  them.  The 
history  knows  nothing  of  the  code  of  D  before  Josiah 
and  of  the  code  of  P  before  Ezra.  No  attempt  was  made 
to  enforce  the  codes  of  D  or  P  until  these  dates.  There 
is  silence  on  the  one  hand,  and  there  is  infraction  on  the 
other.  There  seems  no  room  for  them  in  the  times  of 
Moses  or  Joshua  or  Samuel  or  David.  The  providential 
historical  circumstances  did  not  admit  of  obedience  to 
such  elaborate  codes  before  we  find  them  in  the  history 
of  the  times  of  Josiah  and  Ezra.  A  priestly  code  seems 
to  require  its  historical  origin  in  a  dominant  priesthood. 
A  prophetic  code  seems  best  to  originate  in  a  period 
when  prophets  were  in  the  pre-eminence.  A  theocratic 
code  suits  best  a  prosperous  kingdom  and  a  period  when 
elders  and  judges  were  in  authority.  Is  it  the  most 
natural  supposition  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  remained 
buried  from  Moses  until  Josiah  and  the  priest-code 
from  Moses  until  Ezra?  Is  it  not  more  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  the  Deuteronomic  code  was  a  recodification 
of  an  ancient  code  discovered  in  the  temple  in  Josiah's 
time,  and  that  the  priest-code  is  a  recodification  of  older 
codes  and  priestly  traditional  customs  and  ritual  for  the 
purpose  of  Ezra's  reform  ?  Would  God  inspire  holy 
men  to  codify  these  codes  of  legislation  centuries  before 
they  could  be  used  ?  The  ideal  prophetic  character  of 
these  codes  best  explains  itself  when  the  law  like  the 
prophets  and  the  wisdom  literature  and  the  psalmody 
springs  out  of  the  historic  development  of  the  kingdom 
of  redemption. 

III. —  The  Religious  Development  of  Israel. 

It  is  clear  from  the  Literature  that  there  is  a  develop- 
ment in  the  worship  of  Israel  as  well  as  in  doctrines 
and  morals.     The  traditional  theory  is  at  fault  in  inter- 


THE   WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY  125 

prcting  the  history  chiefly  as  a  series  of  apostasies. 
This  pessimistic  view  of  the  religion  of  Israel  is  against 
the  facts  of  the  case.  In  morals  and  in  faith  there  is 
manifest  progress.  There  must  have  gone  along  with 
progress  in  these  things  religious  progress  also.  Doc- 
trinal and  ethical  progress  is  indeed  impossible  without 
a  progress  in  the  religion  that  underlies  and  shapes 
doctrines  and  morals.  The  ancient  congregation  of 
Israel  no  more  went  on  declining  until  the  exile  than 
the  Christian  Church  has  been  declining  or  will  continue 
to  decline  till  the  Second  Advent.  There  were  tem- 
porary declensions,  but  in  every  case  in  order  to  a  new 
advance.  Rather  as  the  Church  in  her  historic  life  has 
been  appropriating  more  and  more  the  faith  of  the  gos- 
pel, so  did  Israel  in  her  experience  appropriate  more  and 
more  of  the  law  of  Moses.  Thus  we  can  trace  in  the 
history  of  Israel  a  religious  progress  in  remarkable 'ac- 
cordance with  the  codes.  It  is  not  surprising  that  the 
school  of  Reuss  put  the  Covenant  code  in  the  reign  of 
Jehoshaphat.  It  would  be  'difificult  to  find  it  in  all 
respects  in  the  previous  history,  and  there  seems  to  have 
been  a  progress  in  the  line  of  the  Covenant  code  up  to 
the  reign  of  Jehoshaphat  and  beyond,  with  a  realization 
of  some  features  only  of  the  laws  of  the  other  codes.  It 
seems  most  probable  that  the  greater  code  of  the  Cov- 
enant represents  the  Mosaic  code,  as  it  had  been  codi- 
fied in  the  northern  kingdom  of  Israel.  The  Deutero- 
nomic  code  is  certainly  the  basis  of  the  reform  of  Josiah 
and  enters  into  the  literature  of  the  time  in  the  book  of 
Jeremiah  and  the  Books  of  Kings.  The  priests'  code  was 
certainly  the  basis  of  the  reforms  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
and  enters  into  the  literature  of  the  Chronicler.  These 
reforms  show  successive  stages  of  appropriation  of  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation.     Was  there  not  a  development 


12Q  THE  HEXATEUCH 

of  that  legislation  in  successive  codifications  in  order  to 
facilitate  that  appropriation  ? 

IV. —  T/ic  His  fori fs  and  the  Codes. 

The  fact  that  the  author  of  Kings  is  familiar  only  with 
Deuteronomy  and  the  author  of  Chronicles  with  the 
priest-code,  does  not  of  itself  prove  that  the  priest-code 
was  not  in  existence  at  the  time  of  the  compiler  of  Kings, 
but  only  that  it  was  not  at  hand  ;  it  was  not  known  to 
him  or  used  by  him.  But  if  it  were  in  existence  why 
was  it  not  discovered  and  brought  to  light  by  the  pious 
Josiah,  Jeremiah  and  their  associates?  Did  they  not 
search  the  temple  where  if  anywhere  such  a  priest-code 
would  be  found  ?  They  certainly  were  anxious  to  obey 
God's  law.  The  theory  of  the  school  of  Reuss  that  the 
Chronicler  so  greatly  colors  the  history  from  his  point 
of  view  as  to  falsify  it,  cannot  be  justified.  It  was 
natural  that  each  should  examine  the  history  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  code  most  familiar  to  him  ;  and  that 
the  author  of  Kings  and  th*e  Chronicler  should  therefore 
occupy  different  planes  of  judgment.  We  could  not 
reasonably  demand  that  they  should  be  colorless.  These 
differences  do  not  show  any  intentional  misinterpretation 
on  the  part  of  either  of  them,  or  that  the  Chronicler 
undertook  to  invent  the  history.  But  it  suggests  the 
natural  supposition  that  the  priests'  code  was  subsequent 
in  origin  to  the  Book  of  Kings. 

V. — Ezekiel  and  the  Codes. 

The  relation  of  the  code  of  Ezekiel  (xl.-xlviii.)  to  the 
priest's  code  is  justly  regarded  as  the  key  of  the  situa- 
tion. The  school  of  Reuss  represents  the  code  of  Ezekiel 
as  designed  for  the  returned  exiles  ;  and  that  it  was  a 
preparation  in  development  for  the  priests'  code.     The 


THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  HISTORY 


127 


intermediate  position  of  the  code  of  Ezekiel  between  the 
Deuteronomic  code  and  the  priests*  code  is  in  dispute ; 
but  if  it  be  intermediate  it  is  no  more  necessary  in  this 
case,  than  in  the  others,  to  explain  the  fact  by  a  historical 
development  of  the  one  into  the  other.  But  rather  the 
changes  are  in  the  nature  of  an  idealization.  Ezekiel's 
construction  of  the  temple,  the  division  of  the  holy  land 
among  the  tribes,  the  wonderful  river  of  life,  and  tree  of 
life,  mingle,  in  a  most  magnificent  prophetic  ideal  of  the 
imagination,  the  representations  of  the  garden  of  Eden, 
the  temple  of  Solomon,  the  division  of  the  land  at  the 
conquest,  and  the  great  works  of  architecture  on  the 
Euphrates, — in  their  combination,  impossible  of  realiza- 
tion in  fact.  When  the  offerings  and  feasts  of  Ezekiel 
are  considered  from  this  point  of  view  they  seem  to  be 
intentionally  diverse  from  those  of  the  Mosaic  legisla- 
tion in  Deuteronomy,  and  no  less  incapable  of  actual 
realization.  It  is  not  natural  to  think  of  them  as  a  legal 
programme  for  the  restoration.  This  whole  legislation 
of  Ezekiel  is  a  symbol,  tremendous  in  extent  and  in 
power;  and  it  is  to  be  compared  with  the  symbols  of  the 
Resurrection  (xxxvii.  1-14),  the  union  of  the  two  sticks 
(xxxvii.  15-28),  the  marvellous  growth  of  the  cedar  twig 
(xvii.  22-24),  ^^d  the  battle  with  Gog  and  Magog 
(xxxviii.-ix.) ;  for  Ezekiel  is  the  master  of  symbolical 
prophecy. 

On  the  other  hand  it  is  worthy  of  note,  that  Ezekiel 
is  in  very  close  connection  with  the  code  of  Holiness  (Lev. 
xvii.-xxvi.).  This  section  has  certain  features  peculiar 
to  itself,  as  we  have  seen.  Graf,  Kayser,  and  others 
ascribed  it  to  the  prophet  Ezekiel  himself,  Horst  re- 
garded it  as  a  codification  of  more  ancient  laws  by  Eze- 
kiel prior  to  the  composition  of  his  own  code.  Klostcr- 
mann  calls  it  the  ''Hciligkcitsgesetzr     It  is  now  agreed 


128  THE  HEXATEUCH 

that  it  is  a  distinct  code.  We  designate  it  by  code  of 
Holiness  (H).  Reuss,  Welibausen,  and  Kuenen  make  this 
code  later  than  Ezekiel,  but  prior  to  the  rest  of  the  Priests' 
code.  Questions  of  relative  priority  and  dependence  are 
among  the  most  difficult  in  the  field  of  Higher  Criticism. 
Ezekiel's  resemblance  to  it  in  many  respects  implies  a 
knowledge  of  its  legislation  whether  he  knew  it  in  its 
present  form  of  codification  or  not.  It  is  probable  that 
Ezekiel  knew  of  it,  but  it  is  difificult  to  prove  the  existence 
of  the  code  prior  to  Ezekiel. 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  arguments  relied  upon  by 
the  school  of  Reuss  for  their  theory  of  the  development  of 
the  Hexateuch.  These  sustain  the  theory  so  far  as  the 
codification  of  the  legislation  in  its  present  literary  forms 
is  concerned ;  but  not  so  far  as  to  disprove  earlier  tradi- 
tional Mosaic  legislation  and  earlier  Mosaic  codes  which 
have  been  used  by  holy  men  with  historic  reverence  and 
under  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  their  codifica- 
tion of  ancient  laws  and  their  composition  of  the  historic 
documents  into  which  the  codes  were  taken  up. 


XIII. 


THE   MORE   RECENT   DISCUSSIONS. 

The  development  hypothesis  of  Reuss  soon  gained 
the  mastery  over  the  older  theories  of  the  composition 
of  the  Hexateuch  and  assumed  various  forms  in  the  dif- 
ferent schools  of  criticism.  The  discussion  of  the  devel- 
opment hypothesis  of  the  school  of  Reuss  was  opened 
in  Great  Britain  by  W.  Robertson  Smith  in  his  article 
on  the  Bible  in  the  Encyclopcedia  Britannica.  Smith  fol- 
lowed the  school  of  Reuss  with  great  boldness  and 
thoroughness.  He  was  opposed  by  Principal  Douglas 
of  Glasgow,  who  advocated  the  traditional  theory.  W. 
Robertson  Smith,  in  defence,  delivered  his  lectures  on  the 
Old  Testament  in  the  Jeivish  ChureJi,  and  the  Prophets 
of  Israel  which,  have  exerted  a  vast  influence  in  English- 
speaking  lands.  Charges  of  heresy  were  made  against 
him  before  the  Free  Presbytery  of  Aberdeen  and  the 
case  was  carried  by  appeal  to  the  General  Assembly  of 
the  Free  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  which  decided 
in  his  favor  so  far  as  his  ministerial  right,  to  hold  such 
views  under  the  Westminster  Confession,  was  concerned  ; 
but  deprived  him  of  his  professorial  position  at  Aberdeen, 
in  order  to  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  Church.  The 
contest  in  this  case  gained  liberty  of  opinion  in  Great 
Britain.      His  teacher,  Prof.  A.  B.  Davidson   of   Edin- 

(129) 


130  '^HE  HEXATEUCH 

burgh,  who  held  essentially  the  same  views,  was  undis- 
turbed, and  the  General  Assembly  of  the  same  Church, 
May,  1892,  chose  Dr.  George  Adam  Smith,  who  holds 
similar  views,  to  be  the  successor  of  Principal  Douglas  at 
Glasgow.  The  discussion  was  opened  in  America  by  an 
article  by  the  author^  in  the  Presbyterian  Revieiv  in  1881, 
and  it  was  continued  in  a  series  of  articles  in  the  same 
Review.  He  was  sustained  by  Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith  of 
Cincinnati  and  by  Prof.  Francis  Brown  of  New  York. 
Prof.  W.  Henry  Green  of  Princeton  defended  the  tra- 
ditional theory  and  was  sustained  by  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge 
and  F.  L.  Patton  of  Princeton.  Prof.  S.  Ives  Curtiss  of 
Chicago  and  Prof.  Willis  J.  Beecher  of  Auburn  took  a 
middle  position.  The  discussion  was  closed  by  articlesf 
by  Prof.  F.  L.  Patton  and  by  the  author  :J:  in  1883.  Since 
the  close  of  that  discussion  Profs.  Bissell  and  Osgood 
have  supported  the  traditional  theory  ;  but  Profs.  Gast, 
W.  R.  Harper,  George  F.  Moore,  J.  P.  Peters  and  many 
others  have  advanced  to  the  support  of  the  analysis  of 
the  Hexateuch.  Pres.  W.  R.  Harper  has  carried  on  a 
long  discussion  with  Prof.  W.  Henry  Green  in  the  He- 
braica,  going  over  the  greater  part  of  the  Hexateuch. 

The  school  of  Reuss  has  been  strongly  opposed  by 
Dillmann,  Baudissin,  and  Delitzsch  in  their  more  radical 
conclusions.  These  have  been  strengthened  by  younger 
scholars  such  as  Strack  and  Kittel.  These  all  make  a 
very  careful  analysis  of  the  documents,  are  agreed  as  to 
the  order  of  development  of  EJ  and  D,  but  think  that 
the  legislation  of  P  is  in  the  main  pre-exilic  and  that  a 
considerable  portion  of  it  very  ancient.  They  magnify 
the  amount  of  ancient  and  original  documents  used  by  P. 


•"•  "  Rights  Duty,  and  Limits  of  BiUical  Criticism^ 

1  Critical  Study  of  the  History  of  the  Hig':er  Criticistn. 

X  The  Dogmatic  Aspect  of  F'eittateuckal  Criticism. 


THE  MORE  KECE^T  DISCUSSIONS  |o| 

The  school  of  Reiiss  agree  with  Dillmann  as  to  the 
Jate  of  Deuteronomy,  but  differ  from  him  as  to  the  date 
of  the  priest's  narrative.  They  hold  it  to  be  post-exilic, 
but  Dillmann  maintains  that  it  was  pre-exilic,  and  that 
it  was  written  in  the  kingdom  of  Judah  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury B.C.  Dillmann  in  this  has  measurably  adv^anced  in 
the  direction  of  the  school  of  Reuss,  but  he  stoutly  re- 
sists their  main  thesis.  Dillmann  also  differs  from  the 
school  of  Reuss  as  to  the  relation  of  JE,  They  make  J 
the  earlier  document,  but  Dillmann  holds  that  E  was 
written  in  the  northern  kingdom  in  the  first  half  of  the 
ninth  century  B.C.,  and  that  J  was  written  in  the  south- 
ern kingdom  not  earlier  than  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century.  There  is  also  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the 
work  of  editing  the  documents.  Dillmann  denies  that 
E  and  J  were  first  compacted  and  then  D  added  to  it 
and  finally  P.  He  holds  that  P,  E  and  J  were  three  in- 
dependent documents,  and  that  they  were  compacted  at 
one  editing  just  before  the  exile,  and  that  during  the 
exile  they  were  attached  to  Deuteronomy. 

One  of  the  most  important  and  successful  parts  of  the 
analysis  of  Dillmann  is  his  work  upon  that  section  of 
the  priest-code,  which  he  names  the  Sinai  Code  (S).  This 
includes  the  code  of  Holiness  in  Leviticus,  and  other 
parts  of  the  priestly  legislation  which  share  its  peculiari- 
ties. Kuenen  recognizes  this  as  an  earlier  stage  of  P, 
and  distinguishes  it  as  P'.  But  Dillmann  holds  that  it  is 
later  than  P,  although  it  contains  many  laws  of  great 
antiquity.  These  had  been  handed  down  in  the  circle 
of  priests  and  were  codified  shortly  before  the  exile,  pos- 
sibly even  before  the  composition  of  Deuteronomy.  This 
code  was,  however,  revised  during  the  exile  and  en- 
larged. Other  laws  were  also  collected  during  the 
exile  apart  from  this  codex.     These   together  with   S 


132  THE   HEXATEUCH 

were  incorporated  in  JEDP  by  an  editor  of  the  priestly 
circle  among  the  exiles.  This  view  of  Dillmann  is  also 
an  approximation  to  the  school  of  Reuss,  for  it  makes  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  priest-code  later  than  the 
priestly  narrative,  and  thus  removes  many  of  the  objec- 
tions to  the  older  view  of  Ewald,  De  Wette,  and  others, 
that  the  priestly  narrative  was  the  fundamental  writing 
of  the  Pentateuch.  We  think  that  Dillmann  has  done 
great  service  in  the  analysis  of  the  Sinai  code,  but  we 
cannot  agree  with  him  in  his  view  of  the  date  of  it,  and 
of  its  relation  to  the  priests'  narrative.  Here  is  a  field 
where,  as  Dillmann  admits,  the  difficulties  are  very  great. 
It  is  reserved  for  future  investigators  to  solve  this 
problem.  It  seems  to  us  that  Dillmann  has  shown  that 
many  of  these  laws  of  code  S  are  in  the  very  ancient 
form  of  the  Pentade,  and  that  the  priest-code  is  really  a 
complex  of  laws  of  different  origin. 

Baudissin"^  has  rendered  a  real  service  to  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  by  his  investigation  of  the 
genesis  and  the  history  of  Priesthood  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. He  takes  his  stand  with  Dillmann,  Delitzsch  and 
Kittel  over  against  the  school  of  Reuss,  and  yet  he  is 
entirely  independent  in  his  methods,  and  has  not  a  few 
opinions  of  his  own.  He  holds  that  E  was  the  most 
ancient  of  the  documents.  This  was  united  with  J  by 
an  editor  who  compacted  them  so  tightly  that  it  is  often 
difficult  to  separate  them.  In  the  priestly  document,  he 
distinguishes  P'  and  P"  by  differences  in  their  views  of 
the  ministry  of  the  Levites.  He  thinks  that  the  legis- 
lation of  P  is  the  result  of  a  long  legislative  development 
in  priestly  circles  at  Jerusalem.  From  time  to  time 
separate  codes  of  priestly  rules  were  written  down.     In 


*  Die  Geschichte  des  Alttestavient lichejt  Priesterthuins .     Leipzig. 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  133 

the  first  half  of  the  seventh  century,  shortly  before  the 
reign  of  Josiah,  a  priest  collected  these,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  code  of  Holiness(Lev.xvii.-xxvi.),  into  a  larger 
work  with  historical  and  genealogical  frames.  This  doc- 
ument was  a  private  code  for  the  priesthood  at  Jerusa- 
lem. It  elaborated  the  priestly  legislation  far  beyond 
existing  circumstances.  The  ideal  in  it  is  so  prominent 
that  many  of  its  laws  have  never  been  realized  in  fact. 
The  private  priestly  character  of  this  document  is  the 
reason  why  it  was  unknown  to  the  author  of  the  Deuter- 
onomic  code,  or  disregarded  by  him.  For  the  author  of 
D  wrote  a  people's  book  in  view  of  the  conditions  and 
circumstances  of  his  times.  This  code  was  composed 
shortly  after  P,  and  reflects  the  religion  and  doctrines  of 
the  times  of  Jeremiah.  When  discovered  in  the  temple, 
it  became  the  basis  for  the  reform  of  Josiah.  But  the 
priests'  code  did  not  become  a  public  code  until  after 
the  exile,  in  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The  code 
of  Holiness  remained  as  a  document  by  itself  until  late 
in  the  exile,  when  it  was  incorporated  in  P.  Ezekiel 
used  it  as  his  favorite  law  book,  while  it  was  a  code  by 
itself.  Baudissin  argues  that  the  neglect  to  use  P  by  D, 
together  with  the  use  of  J  E  by  D,  implies,  not  the  non- 
existence of  P,  but  only  that  at  that  time  JE  was  a 
document  by  itself.  He  aims  to  prove  the  pre-exilic 
composition  of  P,  by  showing  that  the  legislation  of 
Ezekiel  is  an  advance  upon  it  in  several  particulars,  such 
as  the  limitation  of  the  priesthood  to  the  line  of  Zadok ; 
the  slaying  of  sacrificial  victims  by  Levites  instead  of  by 
the  offerers  as  in  P ;  the  partial  substitution  of  the 
prince  for  the  high  priest  and  the  ignoring  of  the  latter; 
the  enhanced  sanctity  of  the  priesthood,  and  the  ex- 
treme precautions  for  guarding  the  approaches  to  the 
divine    presence.     He   also    shows    an    advance   of   the 


134  THE  HEXATEUCH 

Chronicler,  who  writes  in  the  late  Persian  period  or  early 
Greek  period  with  the  use  of  older  documents  frona  the 
time  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  beyond  P ;  and  that  the 
legislation  of  P  does  not  suit  the  circumstances  of  the 
new  community  in  Jerusalem  at  the  Restoration  in 
many  important  respects.  He' does  not  hesitate  to  re- 
gard P  and  D  as  written  at  about  the  same  time.  The 
documents  were  compacted  during  the  last  years  of  the 
exile  by  the  Deuteronomist,  who  united  P  with  JE  and 
then  used  D  as  the  closing  legislation.  Baudissin  thinks 
that  this  order  that  w^as  followed  by  the  Deuteronomist 
who  edited  them,  favors  the  priority  of  P  to  D.  Bau- 
dissin agrees  with  all  critics  in  the  analysis  of  the  Hex- 
ateuch,  except  that  in  a  few  cases  he  suggests  im- 
provements and  modifications.  The  difference  between 
him  and  other  critics  is  in  the  date  of  the  document  P, 
and  the  time  and  method  of  compacting  the  four  great 
documents.  He  adds  to  the  investigation  of  Dillmann 
important  materials  for  that  work  which  is  so  greatly 
needed,  the  detailed  analysis  of  the  document  P ;  for, 
after  the  separation  of  the  code  of  Holiness,  to  which 
all  critics  are  agreed,  there  still  remain  different  layers 
of  legislation  which  must  be  analyzed  and  arranged  in 
historical  order  before  the  problem  of  the  Hexateuch 
can  be  entirely  solved. 

Cornill,  on  the  other  hand,  works  in  the  lines  of  the 
school  of  Reuss.  He  goes  into  a  detailed  analysis  of  E, 
J,  D  and^P,  and  throws  fresh  light  upon  their  sources. 
He  shows  that  D  uses  J  E,  but  knows  nothing  of  P. 
He  regards  E  as  an  Ephraimitic  writing,  and  places  E' 
in  the  reign  of  Jeroboam  H.,  about  750  B.C.,  and  E'' 
soon  after  the  exile  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  J  is  a 
Judaic  writing,  originating  in  its  different  stages  be- 
tween the  reign  of  Jehosliaphat,  850  B.C.,  and  625  B.C.    P 


THE   MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  I35 

is  an  exilic  law-book.  A  very  important  part  of  Cor- 
nilTs  work  is  the  special  consideration  of  a  number  of 
independent  documents,  which  the  great  documents 
have  taken  up  into  themselves  as  older  sources,  and 
which  have  come  in  through  the  redactors,  such  as  the 
ancient  poems,  the  story  of  Balaam,  Genesis  xiv.,  the 
Covenant  Code,  the  Code  of  Holiness,  etc.  The  Cov- 
enant Code  he  regards  as  older  than  E,  coming  from 
the  ninth  century ;  the  Code  of  Holiness,  as  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  Priest's  Code.  J  and  E  were  first  com- 
bined by  Rj ;  then  these  were  combined  with  D  by  Rd. 
JED  were  then  compacted  with  P  by  Rp ;  but  ad- 
ditions of  various  kinds  were  made  to  our  Pentateuch 
even  as  late  as  the  third  century  B.C. 

A  very  important  part  of  the  work  ofCornill  is  his  ef- 
fort to  trace  the  documents  of  the  Hexateuch,  JED, 
through  the  prophetic  historians,  Judges,  Samuel,  and 
Kings.  Budde  had  already  done  valuable  work  in  this 
department  of  investigation.  If  this  theory  can  be 
worked  out  with  any  degree  of  certainty,  then  the  date 
of  the  documents  will  speedily  be  determined  within  quite 
narrow  limits.  Here  is  a  splendid  field  for  Higher  Criti- 
cism, in  which  the  results  will  be  of  immense  importance. 

Canon  S.  R.  Driver,  in  his  invaluable  work,*  has 
massed  the  evidence  for  the  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch 
from  language  and  style  beyond  any  previous  writer. 
He  is  not  as  strong  in  the  historical  and  theological  evi- 
dence, although  he  makes  valuable  contributions  in 
these  departments  also.  His  analysis  of  J  E  from  P, 
and  of  H  from  P,  and  D"  from  D,  is  masterly  ;  but  he 
halts  in  his  separation  of  E  from  J.  The  date  of  Deuter- 
onomy is  not  precisely  determined,  but  it  is  said  to  be 
not  later  than  the  reign  of  Manasseh.     *'  All  things  con- 


*  The  Literature  0/  the  Old  Testament. 


136  THE   HEXATEUCH 

sidered,  a  date  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  monarchy 
would  seem  not  to  be  unsuitable  both  for  J  and  for  E  ; 
but  it  must  remain  an  open  question  whether  both  may 
not  in  reality  be  earlier."  "  The  laws  of  H  were  ar- 
ranged in  their  present  parenetic  frame-work  by  an  au- 
thor who  was  at  once  a  priest  and  a  prophet,  probably 
towards  the  closing  years  of  the  monarchy." 

''  These  arguments  are  cogent,  and  combine  to  make 
it  probable  that  the  completed  Priests'  Code  is  the  work 
of  the  age  subsequent  to  Ezekiel.  When,  however,  this 
is  said,  it  is  very  far  from  being  implied  that  all  the  in- 
stitutions of  P  are  the  creation  of  this  age.  The  contra- 
diction of  the  pre-exilic  literature  does  not  extend  to 
the  zvhole  of  the  Priests'  Code  indiscriminately.  The 
Priests'  Code  embodies  some  elements  with  which  the 
earlier  literature  is  in  harmony,  and  which  indeed  it 
presupposes:  it  embodies  other  elements  with  which 
the  same  literature  is  in  conflict,  and  the  existence  of 
which  it  even  seems  to  preclude.  This  double  aspect  of 
the  Priests'  Code  is  reconciled  by  the  supposition  that 
the  chief  ceremonial  institutions  of  Israel  are  in  their 
origin  of  great  antiquity;  but  that  the  laws  respecting 
them  were  gradually  developed  and  elaborated,  and  in 
the  sliape  in  wliicJi  they  are  formulated  in  the  Priests' 
Code  that  they  belong  to  the  exilic  or  early  post-exilic 
period.  In  its  main  stock,  the  legislation  of  P  was  thus 
not  (as  the  critical  view  of  it  is  sometimes  represented 
by  its  opponents  as  teaching)  'manufactured'  by  the 
priests  during  the  exile :  it  is  based  upon  pre-existing 
Temple  usage,  and  exhibits  the  form  which  that  finally 
assumed.  Hebrew  legislation  took  shape  gradually; 
and  the  codes  of  JE  (Ex.  20-23,  34,  10  ff.),  Dt.,  and  P 
represent  three  successive  phases  of  it."* 


*  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  135. 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  I37 

These  more  recent  investigations  have  greatly  en- 
riched our  knowledge  of  the  earlier  strata  in  the  docu- 
ments. This  ib  the  field  in  which  criticism  will  hereafter 
gain  its  greatest  triumphs  and  reap  its  choicest  fruits. 
It  is  delicate,  intricate  and  difficult  work,  and  yet  it  is 
necessary  that  it  should  be  done.  Only  in  this  way  can 
we  now  prove  the  antiquity  of  the  legislation.  It  is 
clear  that  the  present  code  is  a  complex  of  legislation, 
some  parts  of  which  have  been  taken  from  earlier 
codes,  other  parts  being  a  codification  of  traditional 
liturgy  and  usage. 

It  is  necessary  not  only  to  distinguish  H  from  P,  but 
also  to  distinguish  P'  and  P\  It  is  also  necessary  to  dis- 
tinguish D'  and  D^  J'  and  y,  E'  and  E^  and  thus  the 
problem  of  Pentateuchal  criticism  becomes  complex  and 
extremely  intricate.  It  is  easy  for  anti-critics  to  make 
sport  of  such  work.  Dr.  Bissell  objects  that  this  makes 
the  Pentateuch  a  piece  of  patchwork,  thus  showing  that 
he  has  not  yet  learned  the  difference  between  the  frag- 
mentary hypothesis  of  Geddes  and  Vater,  which  is  open 
to  that  objection,  and  the  documentary  hypothesis,  the 
supplementary  hypothesis,  and  the  development  hy- 
pothesis, which  have  successively  grown  into  one  another 
as  the  study  of  the  Hexateuch  has  advanced,  and  which 
no  true  scholar  could  possibly  regard  as  making  patch- 
work of  the  Pentateuch  ;  for  they  all  keep  the  unity  of 
the  Hexateuch  in  mind  and  endeavor  to  show  how  the 
unity  springs  out  of  the  variety  of  documents.  A  nice 
piece  of  patchwork  is  to  be  seen  in  Prof.  Osgood's  recent 
tract  of  35  pages  on  A  Reasonable  Hypothesis  of  the 
Origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  advocating  the  traditional 
theory.  He  objects  to  Wellhausen's  extreme  view  of  20 
or  more  writers  and  editors  of  the  Hexateuch  as  an  un- 


138 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


reasonable  hypothesis,  and  yet  in  the  body  of  his  tract, 
in  19  pages  treating  of  Assyria,  Egypt  and  Syria,  he  cites 
at  length  25  different  writers  in  428  lines,  and  writes  him- 
self, counting  introduction,  conclusion  and  seams,  133 
lines.  If  he  had  omitted  quotation  marks  and  marginal 
references,  it  would  have  been  a  tough  piece  of  criticism 
to  get  at  these  25  authors  and  one  editor.  We  do  not 
consider  this  method  of  Prof.  Osgood  an  unreasonable 
method,  although  it  is  a  little  unusual.  The  unreason- 
ableness of  the  Professor  is  in  his  doing  himself  in  such 
a  limited  space  so  much  more  of  the  same  work  that  he 
thinks  it  unreasonable  that  the  editor  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  should  have  done. 

The  climax  of  this  opposition  to  the  analysis  of  the 
Hexateuch  has  been  reached  by  an  ex-Hebrew  profes- 
sor, who  prefers  the  pseudonym  McRealsham  under 
which  to  throw  contempt  upon  criticism  by  applying 
what  he  thinks  are  its  principles  in  a  dissection  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  in  which  he  chiefly  succeeds  in 
showing  the  appropriateness  of  the  name  he  selected 
for  himself.  It  will  be  a  task  of  some  difificulty  for  him 
ever  to  get  rid  of  it. 

Prof.  Geo.  F.  Moore  of  Andover  has  recently  given  a 
comparison  of  the  methods  of  Tatian  in  his  Diatessaron, 
or  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,  with  the  methods  of  the 
redactor  of  our  Hexateuch.  He  gives  the  following 
specimen  from  the  Diatessaron,  showing  on  the  margin 
the  Gospels  from  which  the  extracts  were  made  : 


1  Matt.  iii.  13. 

2  Luke  ill.  23. 


*  ^  Then  cometh  Jesus  from  Galilee  to  Jordan 
unto  John,  to  be  baptized  of  him.  ^And  Jesus 
was  about  thirty  years  of  age,  and   was   sup- 


''•  The  No.  indicates  that  the  passajre  which  follows  belongs  to  the  text  of 
Scripture  given  with  the  number.  This  notation  differs  from  that  given  by 
Moore. 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


139 


'•  John  i.  29-^1. 


*  Matt.  iii.  14  f. 


6  Luke  iii.  21  a. 
«  Matt,  iii.  16  b. 

'  Luke  iii.  22  a. 
8  Matt,  iii  17. 
»  John  i.  32-34. 


1=  Luke  iv.  i  a. 
11  Mark  i.  12. 
"  Marki.  13  b. 

13  Matt.  iv.  2  a. 
1*  Luke  iv.  2  b. 
15  Matt.  iv.  2b-7. 


posed  to  be  the  son  of  Joseph.    ^And  John  seeth 
Jesus  coming  unto  him,  and  saith,  Behold  the 
Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world.     30.  This  is  he   of   whom    I   said, 
After  me  cometh  a  man  which  is  preferred  be- 
fore me,  for  he  was  before  me.     31.  And  I  knew 
him  not ;  but  that  he  should  be  made  manifest 
to  Israel,  therefore  am  I  come  baptizing  with 
water.     ^And  John  forbade  him,  saying,  I  have 
need  to  be  baptized  of  thee,  and  comest  thou 
tome?     15.  Jesus  answering  said  unto  him, 
Sutler  it  to  be  so  now ;  for  thus  it  becometh 
us  to  fulfil  all  righteousness.      Then   he   suf- 
fered him.     ^And  when   all   the   people  were 
baptized,  Jesus  also  was  baptized.      «And   he 
went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water,  and  the 
heavens  were  opened   unto   him.      ^And   the 
Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him   in  the   like- 
ness of  a  dove  ;  ^  and  lo,  a  voice  from  heaven, 
saying.  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased.     ^And  John  bare  record,  saying, 
I  saw  the  Spirit  descending  from  heaven,  like 
a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him.      33-  And   I 
knew  him  not ;  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize 
with  water,   the   same   said   unto   me.  Upon 
whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit  descending  and 
remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which  bap- 
tizcth  with  the  Holy   Ghost.      34-  And  I  saw 
and  bare  record  that  this  is  the  Son  of   God. 
'"And  Jesus,  being  full  of   the  Holy  Ghost,  re- 
turned from  Jordan.     "And  immediately   the 
Spirit  driveth  him  into  the  wilderness  '-  to  be 
tempted  of  Satan ;  and  he  was  with  the  wild 
beasts.     ''And  he  fasted  forty  days  and  forty- 
nights,  ''  and  in  those  days   he   did   eat   noth- 
ing ;  '^  and  he  was  afterward   ahungered.      3. 
And  the  tempter  came  to   him,   and   said.  If 
thou  be  the  Son  of  God,  command  that  these 
stones  be  made  bread.      4-   But   he   answered 
i  and  said.  It  is  written,  Man  shall  not  live  by 


140 


THE  HEXATEUCH 


bread  alone,  but  by  every  word  that  proceed- 
eth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God.  5.  Then  the 
devil  taketh  hun  up  into  the  Holy  City,  and 
setteth  him  on  a  pinnacle  of  the  temple,  6. 
and  saith  unto  him.  If  thou  be  the  Son  of 
God,  cast  thyself  down  ;  for  it  is  written,  He 
shall  give  his  angels  charge  concerning  thee, 
and  in  their  hands  they  shall  bear  thee  up,  lest 
at  any  time  thou  dash  thy  foot  against  a  stone. 
7.  Jesus  said  unto  him,  It  is  written  again. 
Thou  shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy  God. 
"  Luke  iv.  5-7.  '**And  the  devil  took  him  up  into  a  high  moun- 

tain, and  showed  unto  him  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  world  and  the  glory  of  them  in  a  mo- 
ment of  time.  6.  And  the  devil  said  unto 
him.  All  this  power  will  I  give  thee,  and  the 
glory  of  it,  for  that  is  delivered  unto  me,  and 
to  whomsoever  I  will  I  give  it.  7.  If  thou 
therefore  wilt  worship  me,  all  shall  be  thine, 
etc. 

As  Prof.  Moore  says  : 

"  The  most  hair-splitting  analysis  of  the  Pentateuch  seems 
sober  in  comparison  with  this  Composite  Gospel.  It  is,  to  use 
Prof.  Mead's  figure,  a  patchwork,  crazier  than  the  wildest 
dreams  of  the  critics.  And  yet  I  think  no  one  will  read  it,  es- 
pecially in  a  Semitic  language,  without  feeling  that  the  author 
has  succeeded  beyond  what  we  should  have  thought  possible  in 
making  a  unity  of  it.  It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  too,  that  this 
patchwork  was  made,  not  of  indifferent  historical  writings,  but 
of  the  sacred  books  of  the  Christian  church  ;  that  it  was  meant 
to  take  the  place  of  the  Gospels ;  that  it  accomplished  its  end  so 
successfully  that  it  almost  completely  superseded  the  separate 
Gospels  in  the  public  use  of  a  considerable  part  of  the  Syrian 
church;  that  it  was  apparently  only  under  influences  from  with- 
out that  it  was  banished  from  the  use  of  these  churches  in  the 
fifth  century.  Apharates  and  Ephraim  are  acquainted,  indeed, 
with  the  separate  Gospels ;  but  it  is  certainly  within  the  bounds 
of  possibility  that,  if  the  Syrian  church  had  been  left  to  itself, 
without  constant  contact  with  the  greater  church  to  the  West, 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  14[ 

the  knowledge  of  the  separate  Gospels  might  in  the  end  have 
been  l.->st,  even  among  the  learned.  The  parallel  to  the  history 
of  the  Pentateuch  would  then  have  been  complete."  Journal 
of  Biblical  Literature,   1890,  ix.,  pp.  207  seq. 

We  have  higlicr  authority  than  Tatian  for  such  com- 
pilations from  different  documents.  No  less  an  author- 
ity than  the  apostle  Paul  uses  this  method  in  Romans 
iii.  9-18,  where  he  writes  : 

"What  then?  are  we  in  worse  case  than  they.^  No,  in  no 
wise :  for  we  before  laid  to  the  charge  both  of  Jews  and  Greeks, 
that  they  are  all  under  sin  ;  as  it  is  written, 

There  is  none  righteous,  (Eccl.  vii.  20.) 

No,  not  one  ;  (Ps.  xiv.  3). 

There  is  none  that  understandeth, 

There  is  none  that  seeketh  after  God  ; 

They  have  all  turned  aside. 

They  are  together  become  unprofitable  ; 

There  is  none  that  doeth  good. 

No,  not  so  much  as  one  :  (Ps.  xiv.  2-3.) 

Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre  ; 

With  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit :     (Ps.  v.  9.) 

The  poison  of  asps  is  under  their  lips  :     (Ps.  cxl.  3.) 

Whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing  and  bitterness :     (Ps.  x.  7.) 

Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood  ; 

Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways ; 

And  the  way  of  peace  have  they  not  known  :     (Is.  lix.  7-8.) 

There  is  no  fear  of  God  before  their  eyes."     (Ps.  xxxvi.  i.) 

On  the  basis  of  this  compilation  by  the  Apostle,  a 
Greek  scribe  attached  these  passages  to  his  manuscript 
of  Ps.  xiv.,  and  from  that  resulted  the  following  facts, 
summed  up  in  the  words  of  Bishop  Perowne,  as  follows  : 

"  But  in  some  MSS.  of  the  LXX.,  in  the  Vulg.,  and  both  Arab., 
SyrO'Arab.,  and  Copto-Arab.,  and  strangest  of  all  in  the  Syro- 
Hex.,  they  are  found  in  the  Psalm,  having  evidently  been  trans- 
ferred hither  from  the  Epistle.  So  also  in  our  Prayer  Book 
version,  which,  it  should  be  remembered,  is,  in  fact,  Coverdale's 


X42  THE   IlEXATEUCH 

(1535),  and  was  made,  not  from  the  original,  but  mainly  from 
the  Latin  and  German,  being  based  on  the  Zurich  Bible."— 
i^The  Psalms,  vol.  i.,  p.  188.) 

And  thus  for  centuries  this  compilation  has  been  sung 
all  over  Christendom  as  if  it  were  a  portion  of  a  Psalm 
of  David. 

In  view  of  such  facts  as  these,  is  it  not  time  that  these 
American  professors  should  have  scholarship  sufficient 
to  deter  them  from  calling  the  compiler's  work  in  our 
Hexateuch  a  piece  of  patchwork? 

As  Eichhorn  said  at  the  beginning,  the  documentary- 
hypothesis  improves  the  evidence  for  the  fidelity  of  the 
records.  The  editor  of  the  Pentateuch,  instead  of  writ- 
ing a  new  narrative  and  making  a  new  code,  collects  and 
compacts  the  several  narratives  and  codes.  He  does  it 
not  by  patchwork,  but  by  the  skilful  use  of  the  docu- 
ments. Sometimes  they  are  given  side  by  side,  some- 
times they  are  interwoven,  sometimes  they  are  entirely 
worked  over,  and  the  pieces  are  skilfully  seamed  to- 
gether. The  work  of  the  inspired  editors  is  more  import- 
ant for  us  than  the  work  of  the  original  writers.  The 
anti-critics  find  fault  with  the  differences  of  the  critics  in 
certain  verses  and  sections,  and  neglect  to  see  the  won- 
derful concord  of  the  critics  in  the  analysis  as  a  whole. 
But  the  disagreements  of  the  critics  are  w^here  they  must 
be  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  namely,  in  the  seams, 
where  the  material  of  the  different  narrators  is  wrought 
over  in  order  to  make  the  narrative  harmonious.  The 
differences  do  not  exist  to  any  extent  elsewhere.  This 
is  rather  an  indirect  evidence  of  the  success  of  the 
analysis,  and  is  not  a  valid  argument  against  it. 

Dr.  Green's  favorite  method  of  argumentation  is  to 
throw  the  critics  of  the  last  two  centuries  into  an  indis- 
criminate mass,  and  then  point  to  their  discord  as  an 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS 


143 


evidence  of  the  unsoundness  of  their  conclusion.  This 
is  the  method  of  an  adv^ocate,  and  not  of  a  scholar.  If 
the  critics  are  ranged  in  their  historic  order,  it  will  be 
manifest  that  the  differences  are  chiefly  between  the 
critics  of  the  several  different  stages  of  the  work  of  criti- 
cism. As  the  work  of  criticism  has  advanced  since  the 
time  of  Astruc,  the  concord  of  critics  has  increased 
steadily,  and  differences  have  disappeared  with  every 
fresh  effort.  This  is  as  it  ought  to  be,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case.  It  is  so  in  all  science,  in  all  search 
after  truth.  The  truth-loving  scholars  advance  step  by 
step,  one  after  another,  and  remove  one  difficulty  after 
another  as  they  advance. 

The  differences  among  the  critics  in  the  analysis  of 
the  Hexateuch  are  surprisingly  few.  We  now  have 
accessible  to  us  the  analyses  of  Dilimann,  of  Kuenen,  of 
Wellhausen,  and  of  Reuss,  of  Driver,  and  of  Kautzsch, 
and  they  are  essentially  agreed. 

These  are  some  of  the  scholars  who  hold  to  the 
critical  analysis  of  the  Hexateuch.  Dilimann,  Kleinert, 
Schrader,  and  Strack  of  Berlin,  Kittel  of  Breslau, 
Kautzsch  and  Meyer  of  Halle,  Noldeke,  Budde  and 
Nowack  of  Strassburg,  Baudissin  and  Jiilicher  of  Mar- 
burg, Stade  of  Giessen,  Konig  of  Rostock,  Bathgen 
and  Giesebrecht  of  Greifswald,  Schultz,  Wellhausen, 
Smend  of  Guttingen,  Socin,  Guthe,  Fred.  Delitzsch  and 
Buhl  of  Leipzig,  Merx  and  Lemme  of  Heidelberg,  Cor- 
nill  of  Konigsberg,  Schiirer,  Klostermann  and  Breden- 
kamp  of  Kiel,  Kampliausen  of  Bonn,  Grill  of  Tubingen, 
Kohler  of  Erlangen,  Hommel  of  Munich,  Siegfried 
and  Stickel  of  Jena,  Orelli,  Duhm  and  Marti  of  Basle, 
Oettli  of  Bern,  Rysscl  of  Zurich,  Montct  of  Geneva, 
Vuilleumicr  and  Gauticr  of  Lausanne,  Volck  of  Dorpat, 
Bruston   and   Montet  of  Montaubon,   Reville,  Carriere, 


144  THE  HEXATEUCH 

Vernes,  Darmstetter,  of  Paris  ;  Castelli  of  Florence,  Tiele 
and  Oort  of  Leiden,  Valeton  of  Utrecht,  Wildeboer  of 
Groningen,  De  La  Saussaye  and  Knappert  of  Amster- 
dam, Lotz  and   Floigl  of    Vienna,  Cheyne,   Driver   and 
Cooke   of   Oxford,  Kirkpatrick,  W.   Robertson    Smith, 
Ryle  and  Stanton  of  Cambridge,  Drummond  and  Car- 
penter  of   the    Manchester    New    College,    Davison    of 
Richmond,  Whitehouse  of  Cheshunt,  Duff  of  the  York- 
shire Congregational  College,  Davidson  of  Edinburgh, 
Kennedy  of  Aberdeen,  Adam  Smith  and  Robertson  of 
Glasgow,  Wright  and  Spurrell  of  London,  Harper  and 
Addis  of  Melbourne.  On  what  other  subject  can  you  find 
such  agreement  among  specialists  the  world  over  ?  Where 
are  the  professors  in  the  Old  Testament  department  in 
the  universities  and  colleges  in  Europe,  who  hold  a  dif- 
ferent view?     They  cannot    be    found.     Is    it    credible 
that  all  these  specialists  should  be  in  error  in  their  own 
departments,  and  that  a  few  American  Hebrew  professors 
should  have  the  right  of  it  ?  Even  in  our  country  we  may 
point  to  Toy  and  Lyon  of  Harvard,  Ladd  and  Curtis  of 
Yale,  Peters  and  Jastrow  of  the  University  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, W.  R.   Harper,   Hirsch   and    S.    Ives    Curtiss   of 
Chicago,   Haupt  of   Johns  Hopkins,  George  Moore   of 
Andover,  Gast  of  Lancaster,  Henry  P.  Smith  of  Lane, 
Francis  Brown  of  Union,  Bartlett,  Batten  and  Kellner 
of  the  Episcopal  Divinity  schools,  Schmidt  and  Brown 
of  the  Baptist  schools,  and  many  others  who  agree  with 
them,  but  who  have  not  yet  published  their  conclusions. 
Such  men,  sustained  as  they  are  by  the  unanimous  voice 
of  the  Hebrew  scholars  of  Europe,  cannot  be  overcome 
by  such  appeals  to  popular  prejudice  as  have  thus  far 
constituted  the  staple  of  all  the  arguments  against  them. 
In  the  field  of  scholarship  the  question   is  settled.     It 


THE  MORE  RECENT  DISCUSSIONS  145 

only  remains  for  the  ministry  and  people  to  accept  it 
and  adapt  themselves  to  it. 

The  evidence  sustaining  the  analysis  of  the  Hexa- 
teuch  and  the  late  date  of  the  composition  of  some  of 
its  documents,  and  the  weight  of  scholarly  authority 
which  accepts  it,  are  so  great  that  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  any  candid  mind  can  resist  them.  That  there  are  a 
few  professorial  Hebrew  scholars  who  still  resist  them,  is 
due,  as  it  appears,  solely  and  alone  to  a  priori  dogmdiixc 
considerations.  They  think  it  necessary  to  defend  the 
traditional  theory  in  order  (i)  to  conserve  their  doctrine 
of  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture,  (2)  to  protect  their 
doctrine  that  only  a  well-known  prophet  like  Moses  can 
write  an  inspired  book,  and  (3)  to  secure  their  interpre- 
tation of  the  New  Testament  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
decided  this  matter  for  us  and  that  therefore  the  veracity 
and  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  are  imperilled  unless  we 
recognize  his  testimony  as  decisive,  that  Moses  wrote 
the  Pentateuch.  They,  holding  these  dogmatic  views, 
are  incapable  of  being  influenced  by  any  arguments  of 
criticism  or  by  any  weight  of  authority  however  great. 
The  science  of  the  Higher  Criticism  is  resisted  by  spec- 
ulative dogma  and  the  supposed  authority  of  Jesus,  in 
precisely  the  same  way  that  the  other  sciences  have 
been  resisted,  each  in  its  turn,  by  the  same  class  of 
minds. 


XIII. 

THE  ARGUMENT  FROM   BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY. 

There  are  a  number  of  arguments  from  the  field  of 
Biblical  theology  which  guide  to  the  determination  of 
the  dates  of  the  docum.ents  of  the  Hexateuch. 

(i).  Divine  revelation  in  dreams  is  frequent  in  E 
(Gen.  xxviii.  12-15;  xxxvii.  5-10;  xl.  5-8;  xli.  1-15; 
xlii.  9.)  It  is  mentioned  in  D,  Deut.  xiii.  2,  4,  6 ; 
but  is  not  known  to  J.  Revelation  in  the  ecstatic  state 
is  mentioned  by  E  and  J,  but  P  knows  nothing  of 
dreams  or  visions.  He  thinks  of  a  direct  communi- 
cation by  God  to  the  soul  of  the  prophet.  Does  not 
this  indicate  a  later  stage  of  reflection  ? 

(2).  There  is  a  different  conception  of  theophanies  in 
these  writers.  E  narrates  frequent  appearances  of  the 
theophanic  angel  of  God.  J  reports  appearances  of  the 
theophanic  angel  of  Yahiveh.  These  theophanic  ap- 
pearances are  mentioned  in  the  Ephraimitic  and  Judaic 
documents  of  the  prophetic  histories.  But  neither  D 
nor  P  knows  of  such  a  theophanic  angel.  When  God 
reveals  Himself,  in  the  Ephraimitic  documents,  He 
speaks  to  Moses  face  to  face,  and  Moses  sees  the  form 
of  God  in  the  pillar  of  God  standing  at  the  door  of  his 
tent.  In  the  great  theophany  granted  to  Moses  in  the 
Judaic  document  Ex.  xxxiii.  20-23,  Moses  is  permitted 
(146) 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  I47 

only  to  see  the  departing  form  of  God,  and  it  is  repre- 
sented that  it  would  be  death  to  see  God's  face.  In 
Deuteronomy  it  is  said  that  the  voice  of  God  was 
heard,  but  His  form  was  not  seen.  In  the  priestly  docu- 
ment it  is  the  light  and  fire  of  the  glory  of  God  which 
always  constitutes  the  theophany.  How  was  it  possible 
for  the  same  author  to  give  four  such  different  accounts 
of  the  methods  of  God's  appearance  to  Moses  and  the 
people  ?  * 

(3).  There  is  a  different  conception  of  miracles.  The 
miracles  of  E  were  always  wrought  by  means  of  some 
external  instrument.  The  chief  of  these  is  the  rod  of 
God,  which  is  used  by  Moses  in  working  the  plagues  of 
Egypt  (Ex.  vii.  17  ;  ix.  27,a  ;  x.  13  ;  xiv.  16)  and  in  the 
victory  over  Amalek  (Ex.  xvii.  8-13).  A  branch  of  a 
tree  works  a  miracle  at  Mara  (Ex.  xv.  25),  a  brazen  ser- 
pent was  erected  on  a  pole  for  healing  (Num.  xxi.  8-9), 
and  the  seven  sacred  trumpets  were  used  at  Jericho  (Jos. 
vi.  5).  The  miracles  of  J  were  wrought  without  any 
instruments,  by  the  wind  (Ex.  x.  13^,  19;  xiv.  2i<^)  by 
the  hand  of  God  (Ex.  iii.  20;  ix.  3,  15) ;  by  his  strong 
hand  (Ex.  iii.  19;  xiii.  3,9,  14;  xxxii.  11);  by  com- 
mand (Ex.  iv.  2-9)  ;  and  without  human  mediation 
(Ex.  iv.  1-9;  viii.  17-19;  xvi.  27-30;  Num.  xi.  18-33), 
and  before  the  ark  (Jos.  iii.  15-17).  The  miracles  of  D 
were  wTought  by  the  strong  hand  and  the  outstretched 
arm  of  Jahveh  without  human  mediation  (Deut.  iv.  34  ; 
Jos.  iv.  24).  They  are  gifts  of  Jahveh  (Dt.  viii.  3-4, 
15-16  ;  xxix.  1-4).  The  miracles  of  P  were  wrought  by 
the  finger  of  God  (Ex.  viii.  1 5),  the  hand  of  God  (Ex.  vii. 
4-5).  Aaron's  rod  takes  the  place  of  Moses'  rod  of  E 
(Ex.  vii.  9,   19-20;  viii.  1-3,  12-13;   Num.  xvii.  21-25; 


*  See  Apf>endix  VIII. 


148 


THE   IlEXATEUCH 


XX.    8-17).      A    handful  of  ashes  was  once  used   (Ex. 
ix.  8-12). 

The  miracle.3  of  the  narratives  of  the  Hexateuch  are 
referred  to  in  such  a  way  in  the  Psalter  and  the  prophets 
as  to  give  evidence  of  value  as  to  their  composition. 

TJic  Egyptian  Plagues. 


E. 


J. 

(and 

Psalm  Ixxviii.) 


Psalm  cv. 


I.  Bloody   wa- 
ter. 


2.  Hail. 

3.  Locusts. 

4.  Darkness. 

5.  Death  of 

First-born. 


1.  Bloody    wa- 

ter. 

2.  Frogs. 

3.  Swarms     of 

insects. 

4.  Pestilence. 

5.  Hail. 

6.  Locus'-s. 


7.  Death  of 
First-born. 


1.  Bloody 

ter. 

2.  Frogs. 

3.  Lice  or 

gnats 

4.  Ulcers. 


wa- 


5.  Death  of 
First-boi 


2.  Bloody   wa- 

ter. 

3.  Frogs. 

4.  Swarm  of  in- 

sects   and 
gnats. 


5.  Hail. 

6.  Locusts. 
I.  Darkness. 

7.  Death  of 

First-born. 


Psalm  Ixxviii.  mentions  the  seven  plagues  of  J,  the 
manna  and  quails  of  J,  and  the  miracles  of  cleaving 
the  sea  and  the  water  from  the  rock  of  E  ;  but  none  of 
the  miracles  of  P.  It  seems  evident  that  when  this 
psalm  was  composed  J  and  E  had  not  been  compacted, 
else  why  were  the  plagues  of  E  omitted  ?  P  was  appar- 
ently unknown,  for  why  should  all  its  miracles  be  ig- 
nored ?  On  the  other  hand.  Psalm  cv.  gives  the  plagues 
of  Egypt  from  the  combined  narratives  of  E,  J  and  P, 
the  water  from  the  rock  of  E,  and  the  quails  and  manna 


^U' 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM   BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  149 

of  J,  showing  that  when  this  psahn  was  written  our 
present  Pentateuch  had  been  compacted.  Ps.  cvi.  gives 
the  water  from  the  rock  and  the  quails  from  the  nar- 
rative of  P,  and  the  crossing  of  the  sea  from  J,  showing 
a  preference  for  the  story  of  P.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  mentions 
the  cleaving  of  the  sea  and  of  the  rock  of  E,  and  the 
drying  of  the  Jordan  of  D,  making  it  evident  that  the 
Psalm  was  written  after  the  composition  of  D.  The 
reference  to  the  crossing  of  the  Red  Sea  in  the  prophets 
Is.  X.  26;  xi.  15-16;  the  exilic  Isaiah  xliii.  16,  1.  2, 
li.  10;  the  earlier,  Zech.  x.  11,  are  all  based  on  JE, 
making  it  probable  that  P  was  unknown  to  them. 

(4).  There  is  a  difference  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Cove- 
nants. E  knows  of  two  covenants,  the  one  with  Israel 
at  Horeb  (Ex.  xxiv.  3-8),  the  other  at  Shechem  (Jos. 
xxiv.  25).  J  reports  a  series  of  promises  to  our  first 
parents  and  the  patriarchs,  but  only  two  covenants,  the 
one  with  Abraham  (Gen.  xv.  18),  the  other  with  Israel  at 
Sinai  (Ex.  xxxiv.  10-27).  D  reports  a  covenant  with 
Israel  at  Horeb,  agreeing  with  E  (Dt.  iv.  13),  and  a  sec- 
ond covenant  in  the  land  of  Moab,  unknown  to  the  other 
writers  (Dt.  xxviii.  69,  xxix.  20).  P  gives  a  series  of 
great  covenants :  (i)  the  covenant  with  Noah  and  its 
sign  the  rainbow  (Gen.  ix.  1-17) ;  (2)  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  and  its  sign  circumcision  (Gen.  xvii.)  ;  (3)  the 
covenant  with  Israel  at  Sinai  and  its  sign  the  Sabbath 
(Ex.  vi.  4,  xxxi.  16-17);  (4)  the  covenant  with  Phinchas 
(Num.  XXV.  12-13).* 


*  The  terms  used  on  these  documents  are  very  different.  fl^lD  HID  is  used  9 
times  in  JED,  but  not  in  P,  who  uses  n''13  D'^pH  [establish  a  covenant] 
8  times,  a  phrase  used  elsewhere  only  in  Ez.  xvi.  60,  62,  and  in  the  sense  of  con- 
firming a  covenant  Lev.  xxvi.  9  (H)  and  Dt.  viii.  18.  So  also  "  remember  the 
covenant  "  is  used  only  by  P  4  and  H  Lev.  xxvi.  42,  45,  Ez.  xvi.  60,  i  Chron. 
xvi.  15,  and  in  the  late  Psalms  cv.  8,  cvi.  45,  cxi.  5,     The  phrases   "  everlasting 


150  THE  HEXATEUCH 

(5).  In  I  Sam.  ix.  9,  it  is  said  :  "  Beforetime  in  Israel 
when  a  man  went  to  inquire  of  God,  thus  he  said,  Come 
and  let  us  go  to  the  seer :  for  he  that  is  now  called  a 
Prophet  was  before  time  called  a  Seer."  This  is  an  histor- 
ical note  by  the  editor  of  Samuel,  stating  that  the  Nabi  of 
his  time  was  anciently  called  a  Roeh.  This  passage  is  an 
explanation  of  the  fact  that  in  this  document  Samuel 
was  called  a  seer.  The  most  natural  interpretation  of  it 
is,  that  prior  to  the  time  of  Samuel,  and  for  some  time 
afterwards,  Nabi  was  not  used.  How  then  shall  we  ex- 
plain the  usage  of  Nabi  with  reference  to  Abraham  and 
Moses  in  the  Hexateuch?  Are  we  justified  in  suppos- 
ing that  the  writers  of  these  documents,  who  use  this 
term  in  the  Hexateuch,  wrote  subsequent  to  Samuel  and 
after  the  term  Nabi  had  supplanted  Roeh  ? 

It  is  noteworthy  that  P  does  not  use  this  term,  doubt- 
less because  he  was  cognizant  of  this  historical  fact, 
writing  with  this  note  of  Samuel  before  him.  There  ap- 
pears to  be  a  growth  in  the  conception  of  a  prophet.  In 
ancient  times  the  prophets  were  called  '^  seers,'*  from  the 
ecstatic  state  in  which  they  prophesied.  The  term  ''  man 
of  God''  then  came  into  use  in  the  times  of  Elijah,  and 
is  commonly  used  in  the  Ephraimitic  sources  of  Kings. 
At  a  later  date  ^^  Nabi''  was  used  to  indicate  prophets 
of  a  higher  order  who  were  the  preachers  or  spokesmen 
of  Yahweh.  The  fact  that  E  J  D  use  this  term  would 
indicate  that  these  documents  were  not  composed  before 
the  age  of  Elijah. 

(6).  The  doctrine  of  the  divine  Spirit  is  not  found  in 
E.  The  Spirit  of  God  in  Gen.  xli.  38  is  the  spiritual  en- 
ergy in  man  imparted  by  God  to  enable  him  to  act.     The 


covenant"  and  "covenant  of  peace"  are  also  confined  to  P  in  the  Hexateuch. 
The  former  was  not  earlier  than  Jeremiah,  except  in  the  poetic  passage  2  Sam. 
•xxiii,  5  ;  the  latter,  elsewhere  only  in  Ezekiel  and  the  exilic  Isaiah. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  15J^ 

divine  Spirit  in  J  rests  upon  Moses  and  the  elders,  en- 
dowing them  with  the  powder  to  prophesy  in  the  ecstatic 
state  (Num.  xi.  25-29).  The  only  other  passage  in 
which  there  is  reference  to  the  Spirit  of  God  is  Gen.  vi. 
3,  where  it  refers  to  the  spirit  breathed  into  man  by 
God,  according  to  Gen.  ii.  7.  This  doctrine  of  the  Spirit, 
as  coming  upon  men  and  endowing  them  with  gifts  of 
prophecy  and  government,  is  common  in  the  earlier  nar- 
ratives of  the  prophetic  historians  and  the  earlier  proph- 
ets. But  P  gives  a  doctrine  of  the  divine  Spirit  which 
is  vastly  higher.  In  Ex.  xxxi.  3  the  divine  Spirit  fills 
the  architect,  who  constructed  the  tabernacle  and  its 
furniture,  with  wisdom  and  understanding,  and  in  Gen. 
i.  2,  the  divine  Spirit  hovers  over  the  primeval  abyss  with 
creative  energy.  Such  an  exalted  doctrine  of  the  divine 
Spirit  is  found  elsewhere  in  the  literature  no  earlier  than 
the  second  Isaiah.  The  poem  which  contains  it  must 
be  of  late  date. 

(7).  The  attributes  of  God  are  only  indirectly  taught 
in  E,  but  in  J  they  appear  in  several  important  pas- 
sages, as  Ex.  xxxiv.  G-j,  where  the  divine  mercy  is  un- 
folded, and  the  song  Deut.  xxxii.  3-4,  where  the  divine 
righteousness  is  set  forth,  each  in  a  number  of  synony- 
mous terms.  It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  the  phrase"^ 
"  mercy  and  faithfulness  "  is  only  in  the  Judaic  writer 
in  the  Hexateuch,  both  as  applied  to  men  and  to  God  ; 
elsewhere  chiefly  in  the  Psalter  and  Proverbs. 

The  doctrine  of  Holiness  is  characteristic  of  H  and  P. 
As  Driver  says  of  H  :  "  The  principle  which  determines 
most  conspicuously  the  character  of  the  entire  section  is 
that  of  holiness — partly  ceremonial,  partly  moral — as  a 
quality   distinguishing    Israel,    demanded    of    Israel  by 


noN"i  ion. 


152  THE  HEXATEUCH 

Jehovah  (Lev.  xix.  2  ;  xx.  7,  8,  26  ;  xxi.  6-8  ;  xv.  23  ; 
xxii.  9,  16,  32),  and  regulating  the  Israelite's  life.  Holi- 
ness is,  indeed,  a  duty  laid  upon  Israel  in  other  parts  of 
the  Pentateuch  ;  but  while  elsewhere  it  appears  merely 
as  one  injunction  among  many,  it  is  here  insisted  on  with 
an  emphasis  and  frequency  which  constitute  it  the  lead- 
ing motive  of  the  entire  section.  In  consequence  of  this 
very  prominent  characteristic,  the  present  group  of  chap- 
ters received  from  Klostermann  in  1877,  the  happily 
chosen  title  of  Das  Hciligkeitsgesetz,  or  *  The  Law  of 
Holiness,'  which  it  has  since  retained."* 

The  segholate  noun  Qodesh  is  used  in  the  song  of  the 
Red  Sea,  Ex.  xv.  i  r,  of  the  holiness  of  God,  where  it  is 
a  synonym  of  majesty  and  exaltation,  and  of  the  place  of 
the  divine  habitation  Ex.  xv.  13.  J  E  uses  it  of  the  place 
of  a  theophany,  Ex.  iii.  5,  Jos.  v.  15,  and  of  consecrated 
spoil,  Jos.  vi.  19.  D  uses  it  of  the  heavenly  abode  of 
Yahweh,  Dt.  xxvi.  15,  and  of  consecrated  things,  Dt.  xii. 
26,  xxvi.  13.  But  H  and  P  use  it  about  217  times,  and 
especially  in  a  large  number  of  phrases  peculiar  to  them. 

The  adjectivef  "  Holy  "  is  used  in  E  of  Israel  as  a 
holy  nation,  Ex.  xix.  6  ;  and  of  God  as  a  holy  God, 
Jos.  xxiv,  19;  by  D  also  of  Israel  as  a  holy  people  6 
times;  of  the  camp  of  Israel  as  holy,  Dt.  xxiii.  15.  But 
H  and  P  use  it  of  the  holy  place  8  times,  of  the  holy 
people  7  times,  of  the  holy  priesthood  5  times,  of  holy 
water  once,  of  the  Nazarite  twice,  and  above  all  of  Yah- 
weh's  words,  *'  I  am  holy,"  5  times. 

Glory:]:  is  used  in  J  E  of  the  honor  and  glory  of  men,Gen. 
xxxi.  I  ;  xlv.  13  ;  xlix.  6  ;  Num.  xxiv.  1 1  ;  and  of  the  glory 
of  God  in  the  theophany,  Ex.  xxxiii.  18,  22  (J),  Dt.  v.  21  ; 


*  Literature  of  the  0.   T.,  p.  44.  f  "  Holy,"  C^Hp. 

t"  Glory,"  nU3. 


THE   ARGUMENT   FROM   BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  ^53 

and  of  tlie  glory  or  honor  due  to  Yahweli,  the  ijod  oi 
Israel,  Jos.  vii.  19.  In  the  mixed  narrative  Num.  xiv. 
21-22  (ascribed  by  Dillmann  to  R),  the  manifested  glory 
of  God  is  presented  in  an  oath  of  God  which  reappears 
in  Ps.  Ixxii.  But  in  P  this  word  becomes  characteristic. 
It  is  used  twice  of  the  glory  of  the  high  priest's  gar- 
ments, Ex.  xxviii.  2,40  ;  and  13  times  of  the  theophanic 
glory  in  some  form  of  light  and  fire.  It  is  noteworthy 
that  it  is  used  in  Ezekiel  17  times  in  the  same  sense, 
showing  that  a  close  relation  exists  between  Ezekiel 
and  P. 

(8).  There  are  striking  differences  in  the  doctrine  of 
sin.  Sin  is  mentioned  in  E  only  in  general  terms  and 
in  connection  with  special  acts  of  evil-doing.  J  unfolds 
the  doctrine  of  sin  in  a  graphic  manner  from  the  point  of 
view  of  personal  relation  to  God.  Evil  is  first  presented 
to  man  in  the  divine  prohibition  of  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge, then  in  the  animal  serpent,  used  by  the  evil  intel- 
ligence who  deceives  the  woman.  The  attractions  of 
the  sensuous  good  excites  her  desire,  she  partakes  of  the 
evil  fruit,  she  tempts  her  husband  and  he  sins  with  her. 
They  both  experience  the  blush  of  shame,  they  fear 
God  and  hide  from  His  presence.  When  called  to  ac- 
count they  excuse  themselves  and  blame  others.  Sin 
knocks  as  a  wild  beast  at  the  door  of  Cain's  heart  ;  once 
admitted  it  rages  in  anger,  revenge  and  murder.  Sin 
develops  in  the  race  through  the  intercourse  of  evil 
spirits  with  the  daughters  of  mankind,  until  mankind  be- 
comes totally  corrupt.  Sin  unfolds  in  Babylon  in  a  cen- 
tralization of  power  and  tyranny,  and  in  Sodom  and  its 
sisters  in  sins  of  uncleanness  until  they  become  exceed- 
ingly wicked.  Sin  is  a  forsaking  God,  a  violating  his 
covenant,  and  a  whoring  after  other  gods. 

D  conceives  of  sin  as  turning  away  from  God,  rebel- 


154  THE  HEXATEUCH 

ling  against  Him  with  a  stiff  neck,  murmuring  against 
Him  and  tempting  Him. 

P  conceives  of  sin  chie^y  as  a  violation  of  the  law  ;  he 
does  not  attempt  to  describe  its  origin  or  develepment. 
He  distinguishes  technically  between  sin  as  an  error,  and 
as  high-handed  transgression.  He  represents  sin  in  the 
use  of  a  characteristic  term,"^  both,  noun  and  verb,  to  act 
treacherously,  and  treachery,  13  times,  which  term  is  un- 
known to  the  other  narrators,  is  not  found  in  the  pro- 
phetic histories,  but  in  Dan.  ix.  7,  Ezekiel  7  times  and 
elsewhere  chiefly  in  the  Chronicler.  This  characteristic 
use  of  such  a  late  word  favors  the  exilic  or  post-exilic 
origin  of  P. 

It  should  be  noticed  here  that  H  has  important 
phrases  "  to  bear  sin  "  or  ''  his  sin  "  or  "  their  sin  "  or 
**  iniquity  "  or  ''  their  iniquity  "  or  *'  iniquity  of  another." 
These  are  used  chiefly  by  H.  Elsewhere  in  the  Hex- 
ateuch  only  by  P.  Ezekiel  frequently  uses  them. 
Elsewhere  they  are  seldom  found,  but  compare  the  exilic 
Isaiah  liii.  12. 

(9).  The  divine  judgment  of  sin  is  commonly  expressed 
in  the  Hexateuch  by  hardening  the  heart.  But  the  doc- 
uments have  different  expressions  for  it.f 

(10).  The  doctrine  of  redemption  in  E  is  simply  re- 
demption from  evil  and  not  from  sin.  The  only  refer- 
ence to  the  latter  subject  is  in  the  warning  at  the  close 
of  the  covenant  code  lest  they  should  not  be  forgiven, 
Ex.  xxiii.  21.     In  J  it  is  the  nature  of  God  to  forgive 


tE  uses  the  term  2)>  plH  Ex.  iv.  21,  x.  20,  27;  also  D2  in  Jos.  xi.  20; 
D  uses  nn  n^pn  and  22h  |*QX  Dt.  ii.  30  ;  J  uses  the  term  2^  T'l^n 
Ex.  viii.  II,  28,  ix.  34,  x.  i  ;  2?  122  Ex.  vii.  14,  ix.  7  ;  P  uses  2?  nCpH  Ex. 
vii.  3,  and  37  ptn  Ex.  vii.  13,  22,  viii.  15,  ix.  35  ;  2?  pfH  Ex.  ix.  12,  xi.  10, 
xiv.  4,  8,  17. 


THE  ARGUMENT  FROM   BIBLICAL  THEOLOGY  I55 

sin,  Ex.  xxxiv.  6-9  and  Num.  xiv.  18-20;  when  Moses 
intercedes  for  the  people  then  sin  is  covered  over  with- 
out sacrifice,  Ex.  xxxii.  30-34.  In  D  Yahweh  chooses 
Israel  and  enters  into  a  relation  of  love  with  them.  P 
conceives  of  redemption  either  as  the  removal  of  sin 
from  the  persons  of  the  sinners  or  the  sacred  places,  or 
as  the  covering  it  over  at  the  divine  altars  by  the  blood 
of  the  sin-offerings.  There  is  an  interesting  usage  of 
terms  in  the  documents.* 

The  relation  of  love  between  God  and  man  is  charac- 
teristic of  D.  God's  love  to  His  people  is  in  Dt.  iv.  37 ; 
vii.  8,  13;  X.  15;  xxiii.  6;  not  elsewhere  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch,  but  first  in  Hosea  the  prophet.  Love  to  God  is 
in  Dt.  vi.  5  ;  vii,  9  ;  x.  12  ;  xi.  i  ;  xiii.  22  ;  xiii.  4  ;  xix. 
9;  XXX.  6,  16,  20;  Jos.  xxii.  5;  xxiii.  ii.  Elsewhere 
in  the  Hexateuch  only  Ex.  xx.  6=Dt.  v.  lO  [a  Deuter- 
onomic  addition  to  the  Ten  Words]. 

These  examples  from  the  field  of  Biblical  Theology 
are  sufificient  for  our  purpose  at  present.  They  might 
be  increased  to  an  indefinite  extent.  They  show  the 
same  order  of  development  that  we  have  found  in  the 
legislation  and  in  the  language,  and  indicate  that  the 
documents  were  composed  at  such  epochs  as  best  ex- 
plain this  development. 


*  7X;i  is  used  in  poetic  passages  of  E  of  the  redemption  of  Jacob,  Gn.  xlviii, 
16,  and  of  Israel's  redemption  by  God,  Ex.  xv.  13  and  Ex.  vi.  6  (RP),  but  it  is 
used  by  HP  only  in  the  lower  sense  of  redemption  of  things  by  payment  of  a 
fine,  Lv.  xxvii.  13,  15,  19,  20,  31.  It  is  used  in  the  sense  of  acting  as  a  kins- 
man chiefly  in  DHP  and  Ruth,  not  in  JE.  riTD  is  used  for  the  redemption  of  Israel 
by  D,  but  by  JE  and  P  only  in  the  lower  sense.  XSJ^J  forgive  is  used  in  E  ; 
nPD  in  DP  ;  both  terms  in  J.  ii^^  is  used  in  Hos.  xiv.  3  ;  Mic.  vii.  iS  ;  Is. 
ii.  9,  xxxiii.  24 ;  Jb.  vii.  21  ;  i  Sam.  xv.  25  ;  but  is  unknown  to  Jeremiah,  Kings 
the  second  Isaiah,  Daniel,  Lamentations,  and  the  Chronicler,  who  use  rOD- 
It  is  found  only  in  the  earlier  and  the  latest  Psalms. 


XIV. 


THE   RESULT   OF   THE   ARGUMENT. 


We  have  gone  over  the  several  Hnes  of  argument  usu- 
ally employed  in  Higher  Criticism  in  order  to  gain  their 
witness  to  the  composition  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  sev- 
eral lines  of  evidence  converge  to  the  same  results. 
These  may  be  stated  as  follows :  The  document  E  is 
known  to  Hosea,  it  resembles  the  Ephraimitic  prophet 
and  also  the  Ephraimitic  writers  in  the  books  of  Samuel 
and  Kinsfs.  It  is  the  most  archaic  of  the  documents  in"\^>f^'^^* 
language,  style,  and  historical  and  doctrinal  conceptions.^' 
It  shows  great  interest  in  the  sacred  places  of  Northern 
Israel.  It  appears  therefore  that  E  was  the  narrative  of 
the  Northern  kingdom  of  Israel,  and  that  its  law  code, 
the  greater  book  of  the  covenant,  was  the  Mosaic  law  in 
its  Ephraimitic  codification. 

It  is  possible  that  J  was  known  to  Hosea,  but  this  ^^^t^l.^ji^l^^r 
not  certain.  It  was  evidently  known  to  the  prophet* 
Isaiah.  Its  interest  in  the  sanctuaries  in  Judah  and  its 
resemblance  with  the  Judaic  writers  of  the  histories  of 
David  and  Solomon  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings, 
make  it  altogether  probable  that  we  have  in  this  writing 
the  Judaic  recension  of  the  history.  The  only  legisla- 
tion it  attributes  to  Moses  is  the  moral  law  of  the  Ten 
Words,  the  decalogue  of  worship  (the  little  book  of  the 
(156) 


.X 


THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  157 

Covenant)  and  a  special  law  of  the  Passover,     its  style 

is   the  very   choicest   and   best.     The   author    probably  j^  iv»^-^ 

lived  at  the  centre   of  Jewish  affairs,  in  the  holy  city, 

Jerusalem,  where  he  had  access  to  the  best  sources  of 

information  and  where  he  had  acquired  the  best  literary 

culture. 

Deuteronomy  cannot  be  traced  earlier  than  the  reign 
of  Josiah.  It  then  comes  into  full  recognition  and  use  in 
the  work  of  the  compiler  of  the  Book  of  Kings  and  in  the 
prophecy  of  Jeremiah.  It  was  a  recodification  of  the  old 
covenant  code  of  Moses  in  the  Judaic  recension,  and 
thus  the  code  shows  parallelism  with  the  covenant  code 
of  E.  The  prophetic  codifier  shows  by  his  method  and 
style  that  he  had  back  of  him  a  long  history  of  prophetic 
oral  and  written  discourses. 

The  code  of  Holiness  comes  into  the  historic  field  first 
in  connection  with  Ezekiel.  It  is  a  codification  of  the 
immemorial  practice  of  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  going 
back  to  Aaron  and  Moses. 

The  priest-code  and  the  document  which  contains  it 
cannot  be  proven  till  Ezra's  time.  It  was  a  larger  codi- 
fication of  the  priestly  ritual  and  customs  coming  down 
by  tradition  from  Moses  and  Aaron  in  the  priestly 
circles  of  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  carefully  con- 
served as  holy  relics  in  the  priestly  families  among  the 
exiles,  as  bearing  in  them  sacred  memories  and  holy 
promises. 

Driver  makes  this  moderate  and  cautious   statement : 

"  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  Moses  was  the  ulti- 
mate founder  of  both  the  national  and  the  religious  life 
of  Israel ;  and  that  he  provided  his  people  not  only  with 
at  least  the  nucleus  of  a  system  of  civil  ordinances  (such 
as  would,  in  fact,  arise  directly  out  of  his  judicial  func- 
tions, as  described  in  Ex.  xviii.),  but  also  (as  the  neces- 


158  THE  HEXATEUCH 

sary  correlative  of  the  primary  truth  that  Jehovah  was  the 
God  of  Israel)  with  some  system  of  ceremonial  observ- 
ances, designed  as  the  expression  and  concomitant  of 
the  religious  and  ethical  duties  involved  in  the  people's 
relations  to  its  national  God.  It  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  the  teaching  of  Moses  on  these  subjects  is  pre- 
served, in  its  least  modified  form,  in  the  Decalogue  and 
the  "  Book  of  the  Covenant  "  (Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  It  is  not, 
however,  required  by  the  view  treated  above  as  probable 
to  conclude  that  the  Mosaic  legislation  was  limited  to 
the  subjects  dealt  with  in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  ;  amongst  the 
enactments  peculiar  to  Dt. — which  tradition,  as  it  seems, 
ascribed  to  a  later  period  of  the  legislator's  life — there 
are  many  which  likewise  may  well  have  formed  part  of 
it.  It  is  further  in  analogy  with  ancient  custom  to  sup- 
pose that  some  form  oi priesthood  v^ould  be  established 
by  Moses :  that  this  priesthood  would  be  hereditary  ; 
and  that  the  priesthood  would  also  inherit  from  their 
founder  some  traditionary  lore  (beyond  what  is  con- 
tained in  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.)  on  matters  of  ceremonial  observ- 
ance. And  accordingly  we  find  that  JE  both  mentions 
repeatedly  an  Ark  and  *' Tent  of  Meeting  "as  existing 
in  the  Mosaic  age  (Ex.  xxxiii.  7-1 1,  Nu.  xi.,  24ff,  xii. 
4ff,  Dt.  xxxi.  I4ff),  and  assigns  to  Aaron  a  prominent  and, 
indeed,  an  official  position  (Ex.  iv.  14,  "Aaron  the  Le- 
vite /'  xviii.  12;  xxiv.  i,  9);  further,  that  in  Dt.  (x.  6b) 
a  hereditary  priesthood  descended  from  him  is  expressly 
recognized  ;  and  also  that  there  are  early  allusions  to  the 
"  tribe  of  Levi  "  as  enjoying  priestly  privileges  and  exer- 
cising priestly  functions  (Dt.  xxxiii.  10;  Mic.  iii.  ii  ;  cf. 
Jud.  xvii.  13).  The  principles  by  which  the  priesthood 
was  to  be  guided  were  laid  down,  it  may  be  supposed,  in 
outline  by  Moses.  In  process  of  time,  however,  as  na- 
tional life  grew  more  complex,  and  fresh  cases  requiring 


THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  I59 

to  be  dealt  with  arose,  these  principles  would  be  found 
no  longer  to  suffice,  and  their  extension  would  become  a 
necessity.  Especially  in  matters  of  ceremonial  observ^- 
ance,  which  would  remain  naturally  within  the  control 
of  the  priests,  regulations  such  as  those  enjoined  in  Ex. 
XX.  24-26,  xxii.  29-31,  xxiii.  14-19,  would  not  long  con- 
tinue in  the  same  rudimentary  state;  fresh  definitions  and 
distinctions  would  be  introduced,  more  precise  rules 
would  be  prescribed  for  the  method  of  sacrifice,  the  ritual 
to  be  observed  by  the  priests,  the  dues  which  they  were 
authorized  to  receive  from  the  people,  and  other  similar 
matters.  After  the  priesthood  had  acquired,  through 
the  foundation  of  Solomon's  temple,  a  permanent  centre, 
it  is  probable  that  the  process  of  development  and  sys- 
tematization  advanced  more  rapidly  than  before.  And 
thus  the  allusions  in  Dt.  imply  the  existence  of  usages 
beyond  those  which  fall  directly  within  the  scope  of  the 
book,  and  belonging  specially  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  priests  {c.  g.  xvii.  1 1,  xxiv.  8) :  Ezekiel,  being  a  priest 
himself,  alludes  to  such  usages  more  distinctly.  Al- 
though, therefore,  there  are  reasons  for  supposing  that 
the  priest-code  assumed  finally  the  shape  in  which  we 
have  it  in  the  age  subsequent  to  Ezekiel,  it  rests  ulti- 
mately upon  an  ancient  traditional  basis  ;  and  many  of 
the  institutions  prominent  in  it  are  recognized,  in  various 
stages  of  their  growth,  by  the  earlier  pre-exilic  literature, 
by  Dt.  and  by  Ezekiel.  The  laws  of  P,  even  when  they 
included  later  elements,  were  still  referred  to  Moses, — no 
doubt  because  in  its  basis  and  origin  Hebrew  legislation 
was  actually  derived  from  him,  and  was  only  modified 
gradually."* 

The  conclusions  of   our  argument  may  be  stated  as 
follows  : 


Literature  0/  the  Old  Testament,  pp.  145,  146. 


2(^0  THE   ITEXATEUCH 

(i).  We  have  not  one  narrative,  but  a  fourfold  narra- 
tive of  the  origin  of  the  old  covenant  religion,  as  we 
have  a  fourfold  gospel  giving  the  narrative  of  the  origin 
of  the  new  covenant  religion.  There  is,  indeed,  a  re- 
markable correspondence  in  these  four  types  or  points 
of  view.  The  Ephraimitic  writer  may  be.  compared 
with  Mark,  the  Judaic  writer  with  Matthew,  the  priestly 
writer  with  Luke,  and  the  Deuteronomist  w^ith  John. 
The  difference  between  the  Pentateuch  and  the  Gospels 
is  that  the  four  narratives  of  the  Pentateuch  have  been 
compacted  by  a  series  of  inspired  Redactors ;  whereas 
the  Gospels  have  to  be  harmonized  by  uninspired  teach- 
ers in  the  Church.  This  unity  in  variety  strengthens 
the  credibility  of  the  Pentateuch.  As  the  four  Gospels 
contain  the  gospel  of  Christ,  so  the  narratives  of  the 
Pentateuch  contain  the  law  of  Moses.  As  our  Saviour 
is  set  forth  by  the  Evangelist  as  the  mediator  of  the 
new  covenant,  Moses  is  set  forth  by  the  narratives  of 
the  Pentateuch  as  the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant. 

(2).  The  Pentateuch  does  not  give  us  one  Mosaic 
code,  but  several  codes  of  Mosaic  legislation,  a  deca- 
logue of  w^orship,  a  judicial  code  of  several  decalogues,  a 
people's  code,  a  code  of  holiness,  and  a  priest-code, 
contained  in  the  narratives,  somewhat  as  the  Gospels 
present  us  the  discourses  of  Jesus  in  the  varied  types 
peculiar  to  Mark,  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John.  As  we 
harmonize  the  Gospels  for  a  complete  and  symmetrical 
statement  of  the  doctrine  of  Jesus,  so  we  harmonize  the 
codes  of  the  Pentateuch  for  a  complete  and  symmetrical 
exposition  of  the  law  of  Moses.  The  law  was  given 
through  Moses,  grace  and  truth  came  through  Jesus 
Christ. 

(3).  The  Mosaic  legislation  was  delivered  through 
Moses,  the  great  prophetic  law-giver  of  Israel,  and  then 


THE  RESULT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  IQl 

unfolded  in  historical  usage  and  interpretation  in  a 
series  of  codifications  by  inspired  prophets  and  priests; 
but  it  was  in  several  stages  of  advancement  in  the  his- 
torical life  and  experience  of  Israel  from  the  conquest  to 
the  exile.  It  was  a  divine  ideal,  a  supernatural  revealed 
instruction,  to  guide  the  people  of  Israel  throughout 
their  history,  and  lead  them  to  the  prophet  greater  than 
Moses,  who  was  to  fulfil  and  complete  his  legislation. 
The  law  was  the  true  light  of  Israel  until  the  first  Ad- 
vent, even  as  the  Gospel  is  the  light  and  guide  of  the 
Church  until  the  Second  Advent.  Israel  appropriated 
more  and  more  the  instruction  of  the  law,  as  the  Church 
has  appropriated  more  and  more  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel.  The  history  of  God's  people  under  both  cove- 
nants has  been  essentially  the  same — a  grand  march  for- 
ward under  the  supernatural  light  of  a  divine  revelation. 

(4).  Law  and  Prophecy  are  not  two  distinct  and  sepa- 
rate modes  of  revelation,  but  the  same.  The  law  of 
Moses  was  as  truly  prophetic  as  legal.  Moses  was  even 
more  a  prophet  than  a  law-giver.  The  prophets  of  God 
that  followed  him  all  give  divine  law  as  w^ell  as  divine 
prophecy.  As  the  apostles  in  the  new  covenant  were 
not  merely  expositors  of  the  Gospel,  but  came  forth 
from  the  risen  and  glorified  Christ  with  new  revelations, 
enlarging  and  completing  the  Gospel  ;  so  the  prophets 
were  not  ;fierf  expositors  of  the  law,  but  came  forth  im- 
mediately from  the  presence  of  Jahweh  as  really  as 
Moses  did,  with  new  revelations  enlarging  and  complet- 
ing the  old.  The  distinction  between  law  and  prophecy 
in  the  Bible  is  a  fluctuating  one,  so  that  the  whole  divine 
revelation  may  be  called  law,  and  also  prophecy,  accord- 
ing to  the  usage  of  the  Bible  itself. 

(5).  There  is  in  the  law,  as  in  the  Gospel,  a  divine 
transforming  power  which  shaped  the  history  of  Israel, 


IQ2  THE  HEXATEUCH 

as  the  Gospel  has  shaped  the  history  of  the  Church  in 
successive  stages  of  appropriation.  Not  without  some 
reason  have  many  recent  Christian  scholars  after  Nean- 
der  divided  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  after  the 
names  of  the  chief  apostles  as  indicating  the  various 
types  of  Christianity.  With  even  more  reason  might  we 
divide  the  history  of  Israel  into  stages  of  progress  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  several  law  codes.  The  Christian 
Church  may  look  forward  to  a  time  when  the  unity  and 
variety  of  the  gospel  of  Christ  shall  be  fully  manifested 
in  her  historic  life.  The  people  of  Israel  also  reached  a 
stage  when  in  her  historic  life  the  several  codes  har- 
monized, and  the  whole  bent  of  the  nation  was  in  the 
study  of  the  law  and  a  conscientious  fulfilment  of  it,  and 
then  in  the  fulness  of  time  Christ  Jesus  the  Messiah  came. 
The  deeper  study  of  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  Hex- 
ateuchal  narratives  and  laws,  as  we  defend  their  his- 
toricity against  Reuss,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  and 
advance  in  the  apprehension  of  their  sublime  harmony, 
will  fructify  and  enrich  the  theology  of  our  day,  just  as 
the  deeper  study  of  the  unity  and  variety  of  the  gospels 
by  the  school  of  Neander,  in  the  defence  of  them  against 
Strauss,  Renan,  and  Baur,  has  been  an  unspeakable  bless- 
ing in  the  past  generation.  This  having  been  accom- 
plished, we  may  look  forward  to  a  time  when  our  eyes 
shall  be  opened  as  never  before  to  the  magnificent 
unity  of  the  whole  Bible  in  the  midst  of  its  w^ondrous 
variety.  Then  the  word  of  God,  as  one  supernatural 
divine  revelation,  will  rise  into  such  a  position  of  spirit- 
ual power  and  transcendent  influence,  as  shall  greatly 
advance  the  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  and  hasten  the  realization  of  that  most  blessed 
hope  of  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  in  glory. 


APPENDIX. 

I.  The  two  Narratives  of  the  Revelation  of  the 
Divine  Name  Yahweh,  p.  165. 

II.  The  Characteristic  Words  and   Phrases  of  D,  H, 

AND    P   ACCORDING  TO   CaNON    DRIVER,  p.  l68. 

III.  The  Genesis  of  the  Ten  Words,  p.  181. 

IV.  The  two  Narratives  of  the  Pestilence  in  Egypt, 

p.  188. 

V.  The  Decalogue  of  J  and  its  Parallels  in  the  other 

Codes,  p.  189. 

VI.  The  Greater  Book  of  the  Covenant  and  its  Par- 

allels IN  THE  LATER  CODES,  p.  211. 

VII.  Variations  of  D  and  H,  p.  233. 
VIII.  The  several  Representations  of  the  Theophany, 
p.  236. 


(163) 


i 


THE  TWO   NARRATIVES   OF   THE    REVELATION    OF   THE   DIVINE 
NAME    YAHWEH. 


Ex.  Hi.  12-15  (^)- 

And  he  said,  Verily  /  shall 
be  with  thee  (l^y  H^nx)  and  this 
shall  be  the  sign  to  thee  that 
I  O^JN)  have  sent  thee  :  when 
thou  hast  brought  forth  the 
people  from  Egypt,  ye  shall 
serve  God  (DTl^NH)  upon  this 
mountain.  And  Moses  said 
unto  God  (a^n^xn),  Behold  I 
03JS)  am  going  to  come  unto 
the  children  of  Israel  and  say 
to  them,  the  God  of  your  fa- 
thers hath  sent  me  unto  you. 
If  they  say  to  me,  what  is  his 
name,  what  shall  I  say  unto 
them  ?  And  God  said  (Q\";^N) 
unto  Moses,  /  shall  be  the  one 
•who  will  be  (e.  g.  with  thee 
HMN  ■i:i\S  .Tnx).  And  he  said, 
Thus  shaltthou  say  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  /  shall  be  (e.  g. 
with  thee  HTIN)  hath  sent  me 
unto  you.  And  God  (Q\ni?N) 
said  again  unto  Moses,  Thus 
shalt  thou  say  unto  the  children 
of  Israel  Jahveh  (mn^  He  who  \ 
will  be  with  thee),  the  God  of  you  to  me  for  a  people  and  be 
your  fathers,  the  God  of  Abra-  toyou  foraGodlDM^xi?  D^ijnM), 
ham,  the  God  of  Isaac  and  the  1  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am 
God  of  Jacob  hath  sent  me  I  Yahwehyour  God  0:x '•D  DnyT 
unto  you.  This  is  my  name  for  j  DD\"i^X  mn^),  who  bringeth  you 
ever,  and  this  is  my  memorial  forth  from  under  the  burdens 
to  all  generations.  |  of  the  Egyptians. 

These  parallel  passages  not  only  give  different  accounts  of 

(165) 


Ex.  vi.  2-7  {P). 

And  God  (D^ni'N)  spake  unto 
Moses  and  said  unto  him,  /  am 
Yahwch  (mn"'  "'JN).  I  appeared 
unto  Abraham,  unto  Isaac  and 
unto  Jacob  as  'El  Shadday,  but 
as  to  my  name  Jahveh  I  was 
not  known  to  them.  And  I 
have  also  established  my  cove- 
nant Onn3  nx  ^ncpn)  with  them 
to  give  to  them  the  land  of 
Canaan,  the  land  of  their  so- 
journings  (Dnnj?3),  in  which 
they  sojourned.  And  I  0:^<) 
have  also  heard  the  groaning 
(npXJ)  of  the  children  of  Israel 
whom  the  Egyptians  keep  in 
bondage  and  have  remembered 
my  covenant  {y\''\1  IDT).  Where- 
fore say  to  the  children  of  Is- 
rael, /«wFrt//2£/67/(n"inTX),  and 
I  will  bring  you  out  from  under 
the  burdens  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  I  will  deliver  you  from 
their  bondage  and  redeem  you 
with  a  stretched-out  arm  and 
with  great  judgments;  and  take 


166  APPENDIX 

the  same  revelation  of  the  divine  name,  Jahveh,  but  they  also  ex- 
hibit the  differences  in  style  between  E  and  P.      I  shall  not  men- 

tioH  all  of  these  differences,  but  only  some  of  the  more  striking 

ones. 

(i).  establish  a  covenani  n'*'!^  D''pn  is  used  by  P  8  times,  and  in 
Ez.  xvi.  60,  62,  in  this  sense ;  but  by  Lev.  xxvi.  9  (H  the 
Holiness  code  of  P)  and  Deut.  viii.  18  (D)  in  the  sense  con- 
firm  a  covenant.     It  is  not  used  elsewhere. 

(2).  remember  a  covenant  n''"l3"lDT  is  used  by  P  4  times  and  by  H 
in  Lev.  xxvi.  42,  45  ;  elsewhere,  Ez.  xvi.  60,  i  C.  xvi.  15,  Ps. 
cv.  8,  cvi.  45,  cxi.  5 ;  Am.  i  9.     It  is  not  used  in  J  E  D. 

(3).  /  ain  Jahveh  (mri'' ^JX)  is  used  by  J,  Gen.  xv.  7,  xxviii.  13  ; 
Ex.  vii.  17,  viii.  18,  x.  2;andxv.  26  (R)  ;  elsewhere  in  the  Hex- 
ateuch  in  P  35  times  and  H  40  times,  often  in  the  emphatic 
sense  I  Jahveh.     It  is  never  used  by  E  or  D. 

(4).  ^Ji<  is  always  used  by  P  (130  times)  for  /,  except  possibly 
Gen.  xxiii.  4 ;  whereas  "'3JS,  the  longer  form,  is  commonly 
used  in  E  and  D.    The  usage  in  J  varies. 

(5).  DM^'^^n  is  used  as  subject  or  object  33  times  in  E,  and 
as  an  absolute  defining  a  preceding  construct  12  times 
in  E.  It  is  used  by  P  only  Gen.  xvii.  18,  Jos.  xxii.  34  (?), 
and  in  his  sources  Gen.  v.  22,  24.  vi.  9,  11. 

(6).  God  of  the  fathers  DUX  M^N  is  a  phrase  used  12  times  by 
E  and  8  times  in  D ;  by  J  thrice,  but  never  by  P. 

(7).  D\li?5<i?  iTH  is  used  10  times  by  P,  6  times  by  Jeremiah,  6 
times  by  Ezekiel,  by  D  in  Deut.  xxvi.  17,  xxix.  12;  else- 
where in  2  Sam.  vii.  24,  i  C.  xvii.  22,  Zech.  viii.  8,  and 
in  Gen.  xxviii.  21,  which  is  a  redactor's  insertion  in  the  docu- 
ment E. 

(8).  "1IJD  is  used  by  P  7  times  ;  elsewhere  Job  xviii.  19,  Ez. 
XX.  38,  Ps.  Iv.  16,  cxix.  54,  never  in  the  other  documents  of 
the  Hexateuch. 

(9).  npi^J  is  used  by  P  here  and  Ex.  ii.  24 ;  elsewhere  Judges 
ii.  18,  Ez.  XXX.  24. 

(10).  '''^L^*7N  is  used  in  the  blessing  of  Jacob,  Gen.  xlix.  25,  ac- 
cording to  LXX.  Sam.,  Syriac,  Arabic  versions,  and  some 
Massoretic  MSS.  On  this  basis  it  is  used  by  P  5  times  and 
by  the  Redactor  in  Gen.  xliii.  14,  not  elsewhere  in  the  Hexa- 
teuch. 


TIIE  DIVINE  NAME  YATIWEII  167 

fii).  The  style  of  P  in  using  suffixes  with  the  sign  of  the  defi- 
nite accusative  rather  than  with  the  verb  appears  6  times 
in  this  passage,  but  not  at  all  in  the  parallel  passage  of  E. 

(12).  Notice  also  "  And  God  spake  unto  Moses  and  said,"  the 
style  of  P,  as  compared  with  "  And  God  said  "  of  E. 


II. 


THE  CHARACTERISTIC  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  OF  THE  DOCUMENTS. 

In  his  invaluable  work,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testainent,  Canon  Driver  gives  the  following  specimens  of 
the  characteristic  words  and  phrases  of  D,  H,  and  P. 


( I ) .   The  style  of  Deuteronoi}iy. 

•'  The  literary  style  of  Dt.  is  very  marked  and  individual.  In 
vocabulary,  indeed,  it  presents  comparatively  few  exceptional 
words ;  but  particular  words  and  phrases,  consisting  sometimes 
of  entire  clauses,  recur  with  extraordinary  frequency,  giving  a 
distinctive  colouring  to  every  part  of  the  work.  In  its  predomi- 
nant features  the  phraseology  is  strongly  original,  but  in  certain 
particulars  it  is  based  upon  that  of  the  parenetic  sections  of  JE 
in  the  Book  of  Exodus  (esp.  13,  3-16.  15,  26.  19,  3-8,  parts  of 
20,  2-17.     23,  20  fl.     34,  10-26). 

In  the  following  select  list  of  phrases  characteristic  of  Dt.,  the 
first  TO  appear  to  have  been  adopted  by  the  author  from  these 
sections  of  JE  ;  those  which  follow  are  original,  or  occur  so  rarely 
in  JE,  that  there  is  no  ground  to  suppose  them  to  have  been  bor- 
rowed thence.  For  the  convenience  of  the  synopsis,  the  occur- 
rences in  the  Deuteronomic  sections  of  Joshua  are  annexed  in 
brackets. 

I.  3n5<  to  love,  with  God  as  object  ;  6,  5.  7,  9.  10,  12.  11,  i.  13.  22. 
13.  3  [Heb.  4].  ig,  9.  30,  6.  16.  20.  [Josh.  22,  5.  23,  it.]  So 
Ex.  20,  6  (=  Dt.  5,  10).  A  characteristic  principle  of  Dt.  Of 
God's  love  to  His  people  :  4,  37.  7,  8.  13.  10,  15.  23,  5  [Heb. 
6].  Not  so  before.  Otherwise  first  in  Hos.  3,  i.  9,  15.  11,  i, 
cf.  4.  14,  4  [Heb.  5]. 
(108; 


CHARACTERISTIC   WORDS   AND   PHRASES  1G9 

2.  DnnX  Dm5^N*  other  gods :  6,  14.  7,  4.  8,  19.  ii,  16.  28.  13,  2.  6.  13 

[Heb.  3.  7.  14].  17,  3.  18,  20.  28,  14.  36.  64.  29,  26  [Heb.  25]. 
30,  17.  31,  18.  20.  fjosh.  23,  16,  24,  2  16.]  So  Ex.  20,  3 
(=  Dt.  5,  7)-  23,  13  ;  cf.  34,  I4  (inX  ^N).  Always  in  Dt.  (ex- 
cept 5,  7.  18,  20.  31,  18.  20)  with  to  serve  or  go  after.  Often  in 
Kings  and  Jeremiah,  but  (as  Kleinert  remarks)  usually  with 
other  verbs. 

3.  That  your  {thy)  days  may  be  long  [or  to  prolong  days]  :  4,  26.  40.  5, 

33  [Heb.  30].  6,  2\  IT,  9.  17,  20.  22,  7.  25,  15.  30,  18.  32,  47. 
So  Ex.  20,  12  (==  Dt.  5,  16).  Elsewhere,  only  Is.  53,  10.  Prov. 
28,  16.  Eccl.  8,  13  ;  and  rather  differently,  Josh.  24,  31  =  Jud. 

2,  7.t 

4.  The  land  (pXH  :  less  frequently  the  ground,  n^lXn)  which  Jehovah 

thy  God  is  giving  thee  (also  us,  you,  them   i,  20  etc.) :  4,  40.  15, 

7,  and  constantly.     So  Ex.  20,  12  (=  Dt.  5,  16)  nmxn. 

5.  Dn3y  n''^  house  of  bondage  (lit.  of  slaves):  6,  12.  7,  8.  8,  14.  13,  5. 

10  [Heb.  6.  11].  [Josh.  24,  17.]  So  Jud.  6,  8.  Mic.  6,  4.  Jer. 
34,  13.     From  Ex.  13,  3.  14.  20,  2  (=  Dt.  5,  6),t 

6.  In  thy  gates  (of  the  cities  of  Israel) :   12,  12.  15.  17.  18.  21.  14,  21. 

27-2^.  15,  7.  22.  16,  5.  II.  14.  18.  17,  2.  8.  18,  6.  23,  16  (Heb. 
17].  24,  14.  26,  12.  28,  52.  55.  57.  31,  12.  So  Ex.  20,  10 
{==  Dt.  5,  14).     Nowhere  else  in  this  application  :  but  cf.  i  Ki. 

8,  37  =  2  Ch.  6,  28. 

la.  n^JD  Dy  a  people  of  special  possession  :  7,  6.    14,   2.   26,  18. f     Cf. 

Ex.  19,  5  ni?3D  "h  Dn^^"n• 

*lb.  t^np  Dy  a  holy  people  :  7,  6.  14,  2.  21.  26,  19.  28,  C).\  Varied 
from  Ex.  19,  6  C^Hp  ^"IJ  a  holy  nation  :  cf.  22,  30  and  holy  men 
shall  ye  be  unto  me. 

8.  Which  I  command  thee  this  day  :  4,  40.  6,  6.  7,  1 1,  and  repeatedly. 

So  Ex.  34,  II. 

9.  Take  heed  to  thyself  {yourselves)  lest,  etc.:  4,  9.  23.  6,  12.  8,  ir,  11, 

16.  12,  13.  19.  30.  15,  9  (cf.  24,  8)  ;  comp.  2,  4.  4,  15.  [Josh. 
23,  II.]  So  Ex.  34,  12  ;  cf,  19,  12.  (Also  Ex.  10,  28.  Gen.  24, 
6.  31,  24,  cf.  29  ;  but  with  no  special  force.) 

10.  A  mighty  hatid  and  a  stretched  out  arm  :  4,  34.  5,  15.  7,  19.  ii,  2. 

26,  8.  The  cofnbination  occurs  first  in  Dt.  Mighty  hand  alone  : 
Dt.  3,  24.  6,  21.  7,  8.  9,  26.  34,  12  [cf.  Josh.  4,  24].  So  in  JE 
Ex.  3,  19.  6,  I.  13,  9.  32,  II.  (Nu.  20,  20  differently.) 
Stretched  out  arm  alone:  Dt.  9,  29  varied  from  Ex.  32,  11). 
So  Ex.  6,  6  P. 

11.  in2  to  choose  :  of  Israel  4,  37.  7,  6.  7,  10,  15.  14,  2, — the  priests  18. 

5.   21,   5, — of   the  future  king  17,   15, — and  especially  in  the 


170  APPENDIX 

phrase  ' '  the  place  which  Jehovah  shall  choose  to  place  (or  set) 
His  name  there,"  12,  5.  11.  14.  18.  21.  26.  14,  23-25.  15,  20. 
16,  2.  6.  7.  If.  15.  16.  17,  8.  10.  26,  2,  or  "the  place  which 
Jehovah  shall  choose"  18,  6.  31,  11,  [Josh.  9,  27.]  Very 
characteristic  of  Dt.  :  not  applied  before  to  God's  choice  of 
Israel  ;  often  in  Kings  of  Jerusalem  (r  Ki.  8,  44,  ir,  32  etc.) ; 
in  Jeremiah  once,  33,  24,  of  Israel.  Also  charact.  of  II.  Isaiah 
(41,  8.  9.  43,  10.  44,  I.  2  :  cf.  c//osen  43,  20.  45,  4.  Of  the 
future,  14,  I.  65,  9.  15.  22  :  and  applied  to  Jehovah's  ideal 
Servant,  42,  i.  49,  7). 

12.  (i>N1*^'''0  "I2"^P^  V"in  myni  and  thou  i  halt  extinguish  the  evil  from 

thy  midst  {or  from  Israel) :  13,  5  [Heb.  6].  17,  7.  12.  19,  19. 
21,  21.  22,  21.  22.  24,  24,  7.f  This  phrase  is  peculiar  to  Dt.  ; 
but  Jud.  20,  13  is  similar. 

13.  That  the  Lord  thy  God  j?iay  (or  Because  He  will)  bless  thee  :  14,  24. 

29.  15,  4.  10.  16,  10.  15.  23,  20  [Heb.  21].  24,  19  :  cf.  12,  7. 
15,  6.  14. 

14.  The  stranger,  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow  :  10,  t8.  24,  17.  19.  20. 

21.  27,  19.  Cf.  Ex.  22,  21  f.  Hence  Jer.  7,  6.  22,  3.  Ezek.  22, 
7.     Together  with ///^  Z(?z///^ .'  14,  29.  16,  11.  14.  26,  12.  13. 

15.  pm  to  cleave,  of  devotion  to  God:   10,  20,  11,  22.  13,  4  [Heb.  5]. 

30,  20 :  the  corresponding  adjective,  4,  4.  [Josh.  22,  5.  23,  8.] 
So  2  Ki.  18,  6 :  cf.  3,  3.  i  Ki.  11,  2.f 

16.  And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in  the  latid  of  Egypt  :  5, 

15.  15,  15.  16,  12.  24,  18.  22.t 
17-   (V^V)  I^^V  Dinn  ^  thine  eye  shall  not  spare  {him)  :   7,   16.    13,   8 
[Heb.  9].  19,  13.  21.  25,  12.     Also  Gen.  45,  20.  Is.  13,  18,  and 
frequently  in  Ezek. 

18.  XOn  "12  rTTll  and  it  be  sin  in  thee  :  15,  9.  23,  21  [Heb.  22].  24,  15  ; 

cf.  21,  22  :  with  not,  23,  22  [Heb.  23]. 

19.  n^ltDH  ys^T}  the  good  land  {oi  Canaan)  .   i,  35.  3,  25.  4,  21.  22.  6, 

18.  8,  10  (cf.  7).  9,  6.  ir,  17.  [Josh.  23,  16.]  So  i  Ch.  28,  8.f 
Dt.  I,  25  (Nu.  14,  7)  and  Ex.  3,  8  are  rather  different. 

20.  Which  thou  {ye)  knowest  {or  knewest)  not:  8,  3.  16.  11,  28.  13,  2. 

6.  13  [Heb.  3.  7.  14].  28,  33.  36.  64.  29,  26  [Heb.  25].  Chiefly 
with  reference  to  strange  gods,  or  a  foreign  people.   Cf.  32,  1 7, 

21  That  it  may  be  well  with  thee  ("ji?  n^^""  '^^^7  or  -lt^•^{) :  4.  40.  5,  16. 
29  [Heb.  26].  6,  3.  18.  12,  25.  28.  22,  7.  Similarly  (D3^)  '^ 
3101  :  5»  33  [Heb.  30].  19,  13,  and  niD^  6,  24.  10,  13. 

22.  TD^n.  inf.  abs,,  used  adverbially  =  thoroughly :  9,  21.  13,  14 
[Heb.  15].  17,  4.  19,  18.  27,  8.  Elsewhere,  as  thus  applied, 
only  2  Ki.  11,  18. f 


CHARACTERISTIC  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  lYl 

23.  To  fear  God  {r^^'yh  ■■  often  with  that  they  may  learn  prefixed):  4, 

10  5,  29  [Heb.  26].  6,  24.  8,  6.  10,  12.  14,  23.  17,  19.  28,  58. 
31,  13,  cf.  12. 

24.  6DV)^Din  S^,  in  the  sense  of  not  to  be  allo7ved :  7,  22.  12,  17.  16, 

5.  17,  15.  2f,  16.  22,  3.  19.  29.  24,  4.  A  very  uncommon  use  ; 
cf.  Gen.  43,  32. 

25.  To  do  that  which  is  right  ("IL*"."!)  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah  :   12,  25.  13, 

18  [Heb.  19].  21,  9  :  with  nVOH  that  which  is  good  ^M^^,  6.  18. 
12,  28.  So  Ex.  15,  26,  then  Jer.  34,  15,  and  several  times  in 
the  framework  of  Kings  and  the  parallel  passages  of  Chronicles. 

26.  To  do  that  which  is  evil  (yin)  in  the  eyes  of  Jehovah  :  4,  25.  9,  18. 

17,  2.  31,  29.  So  Nu  32,  :3  ;  often  in  the  framework  of  Judges 
and  Kings,  Jeremiah,  and  occasionally  elsewhere.  Both  25 
and  1 6  gained  currency  through  Dt. ,  and  are  rare  except  in  pass- 
ages written  under  its  influence 

27.  The  priests  the  Levites  (=  the  Levitical  priests) :   17,  9-  18,  i.  24,  8. 

27,  9  :  the  priests  the  so7is  of  Levi,  21,  5.  31,  9.  [Josh.  3,  3.  8, 
33.]  So  Jer.  33,  18.  Ez  43,  19-44,  i5-  2  Ch.  5,  5-  23,  18.  30.  27. 
P's  expression  "  sons  of  Aaron  "  is  never  used  in  Dt. 

28.  With  all  thy  {your)  heart  and  zvith  all  thy  {your)  soul:  4.  29.  6,  5. 

10,  12.  II,  13.  13,  3  [Heb.  4].  26.  16.  30,  2.  6.  10.  [Josh.  22, 
5.  23,  14  ]  A  genuine  expression  of  the  spirit  of  the  book  (p. 
73).  Only  besides  (in  the  third  person)  i  Ki.  2,  4.  8,  48  ||.  2 
Ki.  23,  3.  25  ||.  2  Ch.  15,  12  ;  and  (in  the  first  person,  of  God) 

Jer.  32,  41. 

29.  ^jsi?  jnj,  in  the  sense  of  delivering  up  to  :   i,  8.  21.  2,  31.  33-  36.  7, 

2.  23.  23,  14  [Heb.  15].  28,  7  and  25  (with  P]3J).  3^,  5-     [Josh. 

10,  12.  II,  6.]  Also  Jud.  II,  9-  I  Ki.  8,  46.  Is.  41,  2.t  The 
usual  phrase  in  this  sense  is  T'a  jnj. 

30.  To  turn  (ID)  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor  to  ike  left :  2,  27  lit.  (Nu. 

20,  17  has  nOJ)  :  so  i  Sa.  6,  12.     Metaph.  5,  32  [Heb.  29].  17, 

11.  20.  28,  14.     [Josh.  I,  7.  23,  6.]     So  2  Ki.  22,  2  ll.f 

31.  D^^  n-J'yrO  the  tvork  of  the  hands  (=  enterprise) :  2,  7.  14,  29,  16, 

15.  24,  ig.  28,  12.  30,  9  :  in  a  bad  sense,  31,  29. 

32.  ma,  of  the  redemption  from  Egypt:  7,  8  (Mic.  6,  4^.  9,  26.  13.  5 

[Heb.  6].  15,  15.  2r,  8.  24,  18.  Not  so  before  :  Ex.  15,  13  (the 
Song  of  Moses)  uses  ^X3  (to  reclaim). 

33.  3-,p  midst,  in  different  connexions,  especially  "inip3,  l^pD-     A 

favourite  word  in  Deut.,  though  naturally  occurring  in  JE,  as 
also  elsewhere.     In  P  -|in  is  preferred. 

34.  To  rejoice  before  Jehovah:   12,  7.  12.  18.  14,  26.  16,  ii.  14  (cf.  Lev. 

23,  40).  26,  II.  27,  7. 


172  APPENDIX 

35.  To  make  His  name  d-vell  there  (pL**,  pti't?) :   I2,  ii.  14,  23.  16,  2.  6 

II.  26,  2.  Only  besides  Jer.  7,  12.  Ezra  6,  12.  Neh.  i,  g.f  With 
D^B^p  {to  set) :  12,  5.  21.  14,  24.  This  occurs  also  in  Kings  (to- 
gether with  nVrip,  n\"l\  which  are  not  in  Dt.) :  i  Ki.  9,  3.  11, 
36  rt/. 

36.  {Uy^\  y\^)y^^  rk^'^  ^^at  to  which  thy  {your)  hajid  is  put .-  12,  7. 

18.  15,  10.  23.  20  [Heb.  21].  28,  8.  2o.f 

37.  And  ....  shall  hear  and  fear  (of  the  deterrent  effect  of  punish- 

ment):   13,  II  [Heb.  12].  17,  13.  19,  20.  21,  21  f 

38.  7^0  observe  to  do  (DVC'V^  "iDC) :  5>  i-  32  [Heb.  29].  6.  3  etc.  (six- 

teen times  :  also  four  times  with  an  object  intervening).  [Josh. 
I,  7.  8.  22,  5.]     Also  a  few  times  in  Kings  and  Chronicles. 

39.  To  observe  and  do  :  4,  6.  7,  12.  16,  12.  23,  23  [Heb.  24].  24,  8.  26, 

16.  28,  13  ;  of.  29,  9  [Heb.  8].     [Josh.  23,  6.] 

40.  The  land  whither  ye  go  over  (or  enter  in)  to  possess  it :  4,  5.  14  and 

repeatedly.  Hence  Ezra  9,  11.  X\T\^ir\>  to  possess  it  ioWow&^X'^o 
which  J-ehovah  is  giving  thee  {^o.  4):  12,  i.  19,  2.  14.  21,  1. 
[Josh.  I,  11''.]  Cf.  Gen.  15,  7.  In  P,  with  similar  clauses, 
ntnS7  is  used  :  Lev.  14,  34.  25.  45.  Nu  32,  29.  Dt  32,  49. 

41.  a.  mn''  nnyin  yehovah's  abomination,  esp.  as  the  final  ground  of  a 

prohibition:  7,  25  (cf.  26).  12,  31.  17,  i.  18,  12*.  22,  5.  23,  18 
[Heb.  19].  24,  4.  25,  16.  27,  15:  b.  n^yin  alone,  chiefly  of 
heathen  or  idolatrous  customs,  13,  14  [Heb.  15].  14.  3.  17,  4. 
18,  9.  I2^\  20,  18.  32,  16.  a.  So  often  in  Prov.  ;  comp.  in  H, 
Lev.  18,  22.  26  f.  29  f.  20,  13  (but  only  of  sins  of  unchastity).* 

(2).   The  style  of  H. 

"  H  has  points  of  contact  with  P,  but  lacks  many  of  its  most 
characteristic  features.  Ezekiel,  the  priestly  prophet,  has  affini- 
ties with  P,  but  his  affinities  with  H  are  peculiarly  striking  and 
numerous :  the  laws  comprised  in  H  are  frequently  quoted  by 
him,  and  the  parenetic  passages  contain  many  expressions — 
sometimes  remarkable  ones — which  otherwise  occur  in  Ezekiel 
alone.' 

I.  nin''  ""JS^  I  am  Jehovah,  esp.  at  the  end  of  an  injunction  or  series 
of  injunctions  (nearly  fifty  times) :  18,  2.-  4.  5.'^  6.  21.  30.^  19, 
3.*  4."'^  10.'^  12.  14.  16.  18.  25.^  28.  30.  31.^  32.  34.^^  36.'^  37.  20,  7.^^ 


*  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  91-95. 

1  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament^  45-46. 

2  Followed  hy  your  (their)  God. 


CHARACTERISTIC  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  I73 

8.'  24.^  21,  12.  15.'  23.3  22,  2.  3.  8.  9.3  16. =*  30.  31.  32.'  33.  23, 
22.2  43.2  24,  22.2  25,  17.2  38.-*  55.2  26,  i.-^  2.  13."  44.'  45  So  Ex. 
6,  2.  6.  8.  29.  12,  I2^  29,  46*.-'  46^2  31,  i3b.3  jvjy  2,  n^wflT.  41. 
45.  10,  lo.'^  15,  41V  4I^"^ 

2.  mri''  '•JS  Cnp  "^^  For  I  Jehovak  am  holy :  19,  2?  20,  26.  2[,  8.' 

Cf.  ir,  44.  45  (For  I  am  holy). 

3.  That  sanctify  you  {them,  etc.):  20,  8.   21,  8.  15.  23.  22,  9.  16.  32. 

So  Ex.  31,  13.  Ez.  20,  12.  37,  28. f 

4.  K'''X  t^"'S  for  whoever :  17,  3.  8.    10.    13.  18,   6.  20,  2.  9.  22,4.  18. 

24,  15.  So  15,  2.  Nu.  5,  12.  9,  10.  Ez.  14,  4.  7  (with  ^'^^'^^  n"'3D 
as  ch.  17,  3.  8.  10). 

5.  I  will  set  {>T\T\T[)  my  face  against  .  .    ,   :   17,  10.20,  3.  5  (••J{>?  Tl^C^). 

6.  26,  17.  So  Ez.  14.  8.  15,  7"-  7*'  (D:^)-  Jer.  21,  10  (DCM-  44. 
II  (D:;0-t 

6.  I  ivi  II  cut  off  from  the  midst  of  his  {its,  their)  people  :  17,  10.  20,  3. 

5.  6.5     Cf.  Ez.  14,  8  (  .  .  .  TjinrD  :  in  I.ev.  y^^l^). 

7.  n^pni  l!?n  /^  walk  in  the  statutes  :  18,  3.  20,  23.  26,  3.    Also  i  Ki. 

3,  3.  6,  12.  2  Ki.  17,  8.  19  ;  but  chiefly  in  Ez.,  viz,  5,  6.  7.  11, 

20.  18,  9.  17.  20,  13.  19.  21.  33,  15:  cf.  Jer.  44.  lo  (^nnina 
TipniD-t 

8.  ^DDC'DI  Tllpn  my  statutes  and  my  judgments:  18,  4  (inverted).  5. 

26.  19,  37.  20,  22.  25,  18.  26,  15.  43. 

9.  To  observe  and  do  :  18,4.  19,  37.  20,  8.  22.  22,  31.  25,  18.  26,  3. 

10.  "lNt^y?<?j/i  =  next-of-kin :  18,  12.  13.  17  (mXEJ^)-  20,  19.  21,  2.  Nu. 

27,  II  ;  ilC'3  "iXt^  18,  6.  25,  49.     Not  so  elsewhere. 

11.  riDT  evil  purpose  (of  unchastity)  :  18,  17.  19,  29.  20,  14  bis.    So  Jud. 

20,  6.  Hos  6,  9.  Jer.   13,  27.  Ez.   16,  27.  43.  58.  22,  9.  ir.  23, 

21.  27.  29.  35.  44.  48  bis.  49.  24,  13.     (In  RV.  often  lewdness.) 

12.  T\''i:iV  neighbor:  18,  20.    19,  ii.  15.  17.  24,  19.  25,  i^  bis.  15.  17.  5, 

21  bis.  Zech.  13,  7.f  A  peculiar  term  ;  not  the  one  in  ordinary 
use. 


«  Followed  by  the  participial  clause  that  sanctify  you  {him,  etc.). 

<  Followed  by  a  relative  clause. 

t  The  dag^ger  (both  here  and  elsewhere)  denotes  that  all  instances  of  the  word 
or  phrase  referred  to  that  occur  in  the  OT.  have  been  cited.  The  distinctive 
character  of  an  expression  is  evidently  the  more  marked,  and  the  aj^reement  be- 
tween two  writers  who  use  it  is  the  more  striking,  in  proportion  to  the  rarity 
with  which  it  occurs  in  the  OT.  generally. 

'  In  P  always  '■'•shall  bezxH  off  "  (see  §  7).  In  general  the  Divine  •*  1 "  appears 
here  with  a  prominence  which  it  never  assumes  in  the  laws  of  P. 


174 


APPENDIX 


13.  To  profane — the  name  of  Jehovah  18,  21.  19,  12.  20,  3.  21,  6.  22,  2. 

32  (Am.  2,  7.  Isa.  48.  11)  :  a  holy  thing  or  sancttiary  19,  8.  21, 
12.  23.  22,  15  (so  Nu.  18,  32):  in  other  connexions  19,  29.  2r, 
9^  15.  22,  9  :  comp.  21,  4.  9^  So  Ex.  31,  14  (of  the  Sabbath). 
So  often  in  Ezek.  :  of  Jehovah  13,  19.  22,  26  ;  His  name  20,  9. 
14.  22.  39.  36,  20-23.  39,  7  ;  His  sabbaths  20,  13.  16.  21.  24.  22, 

8.  23,  38  (Isa.  56,  2.  6) ;  His  holy  things  ox  sanctuary  11,  26.  23, 
39.  44,  7  ;  cf.  also  7,  21.  22.  24.  22,  16.  24,  21.  25,  3.  28,  7.  16. 
18.     Obviously  the  correlative  of  Nos.  2,  3. 

14.  My  sabbaths :  19.  3.  30.  26,   2.   Ex.   31,    13.  Ez.  20,  12.  13.  16.  20. 

21.  24.  22,  8.  26.  23,  38.  44,  24.  Isa.  56,  4.f 
15-  W\>'\>^  ^^ii"gs  of  nought  =  vain  gods  :  19,4.26,  i.     Not  elsewhere 
in  Pent.     Chiefly  besides  in  Isaiah  (9  times,  and  7^7Xn  once). 

16.  1\n^{<0  DN")''')  and  thou  shalt  be  afraid  of  thy  God:  19,  14.  32.  25, 

17-  36.  43-t 

17.  (DD  Dn''?Dl)  12  VJDT  /"'j  (^>^^z>)  blood  shall  be  upon  him  {the?n) :  20, 

9.  II.  12.  13.  16.  27.  Ez.  18,  13  (n\T  n  vm).  33, 5  (n  im 

n^n^).t     (The  ordinary  phrase  is  ItJ'^l  (3)  (sy  im). 

18.  7"//^'  bread  of  {theit)  God :  21,  6.  8.  17.  21.  22.  22,  25.  Nu.  28,  2  (cf. 

24.  Lev.  3,  II.  16).  Ez.  44,  7.t     (Ez.  16,  19  differently.) 
19".   NDn  J<t;'J  ^^  bear  sin  :  19,  17.  22,  9.  Nu.  18,  22.  32  ;  cf.  Ez.  23,49.! 
I9^  (□)lXOn  ("l)XCO  to  bear  his  {their)  sin:  20,  20.  24,  15.  Nu.  9,  13. f 
20*.   (D)'lJiy  (1)XC0  to  bear  his  {their)  init^uity  :   17,  16.  19,  8.  20,  17.  19. 

So  5, 1.  17. 7,  i3.  Nu.  5, 31.  14, 34  (cf.  15,  31  nn  njw).  Ez.  14, 

10.  44,  10.  12. f 

20*'.  py  XD'J  to  bear  iniquity :  Ex.  28,  43  ;  cf.  Lev.  22,  16. f 

20*^.   .   .   .  |iy  5<J^J  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  .  .   .  (=  be  responsible  for) : 

Ex.  28,   38    Nu.    18,  I  bis ;   so  bear  their  iniquity,  v.  23  (see 

Dillm.  ;  and  comp.  Wellh.  Comp.  p.  341). f 
20^   .   .  ,  to  bear  the  iniquity  of  2ino\her  :  Lev.  10,  17.  16,22.  Nu.  30, 

15  [H,  16].  Ez.  4,  4.  5.  6  (not  always  in  the  same  application). 

So  J<Dn  ^^^  to  bear  the  sin  t/many,  Is.  53,  12. 

(3).   The  style  of  P. 

"  The  following  is  a  select  list  of  some  of  the  most  noticeable 
expressions  characteristic  of  P;  many  occurring  rarely  or  never 
besides,  some  only  in  Ezekiel.  The  list  could  readily  be  in- 
creased, especially  if  terms  occurring  only  in  the  laws  had  been 
added  ;  ^  these,  however,  have  been  excluded,  as  the  object  of  the 


E.g.  "savour  of  satisfaction,"  "fire-sacrifice,"  "statute  forever."    But  the 


CHARACTERISTIC  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  1 75 

list  is  rather  to  show  that  the  /iz's/orical  s,Q.ct\on?>  of  P  exhibit  the 
same  literary  features  as  the  Itgal  ones,  and  that  the  same  habits 
of  thought  and  expression  pervade  both.^  References  to  Lev. 
17-26  have  been  included  in  the  list.  It  will  be  recollected  that 
these  chapters  do  not  consist  wholly  of  excerpts  from  H,  but 
comprise  elements  belonging  to  P  (p.  44).  H  itself  also,  as  was 
remarked,  is  related  to  P,  representing  likewise  priestly  usage, 
though  in  an  earlier  phase ;  so  that  it  is  but  natural  that  its 
phraseology  should  exhibit  points  of  contact  with  that  of  P. 

1.  God,  not  Jehovah  :  Gen.  i,  i  and  uniformly,  except  Gen.  17,  i.  21, 

I^  until  Ex.  6,  2. 

2.  ICind{\'''0) :  Gen.  i,  ir.  12  bis.  21  bis.  24  bis.  25  ter.  6,  20  tcr.  7,  14 

quater.  Lev.  11,  14,  15.  16.  19  [hence  Dt.  14,   13.   14.  15.  18]. 
22  quater.  29.  Ez.  47,  10. f 

3.  To  swami  (|*"1K0  '  Gen.  i,  20.  21.  7,  21.  8,  17.  Ex.  7,  28  [hence  Ps. 

105.  3^\  'Lev.  II,   29.  41.  42.  43.  46.  Ez.  47,  9.     Fig.  of  men  : 
Gen.  g,  7.  Ex.  i,  7.f 

4.  Swarming  things  (|'"li^•) :  Gen.   i,   20.   7,   21.   Lev.  5,  2.  ii,  10.  20 

[hence  Dt.  14,  19].  21.  23.  29.  31.  41.  42.  43.44.  22,  5.f 

5.  To  be  fruitful  and  7nultiply  (n^Tl  mS) :  Gen.  i,  22.  28.  8,  17.  9, 

I.  7.  17,  20  (cf.  2  and  6).  28,  3.  35,  11.  47,  27,  48,  4.  Ex.  i,  7. 
Lev.  26,  9.     Also  Jer.  23,  3  ;  and  (inverted)  3,  16.  Ez.  36,  11. f 

6.  For  food  (H^DJ^i?) :  Gen.  i,  29.  30.  6,  21.  9,  3.  Ex,  16,  15.  Lev.  11, 

39.  25,  6.  Ez.  15,  4.  6.  21,  37.  23,  37.  29.  5.  34,  5.  8.  10.  12.  39, 
4.f     (In  Jer.  12,  9  HpSX?  is  an  infin.) 

7.  Generations  (nn^lD) : 

(a)  In  the  phrase  These  are  the  generations  of .  .  .  (see  p.  5  f.). 
{b)  Otherwise  :  Gen.  10,   32.  25,  13.  Ex.  6,   16.   19.  28,  10. 
Nu.  I  (12  times),  i  Ch.  5,  7.  7,  2.  4.  9.  8,  28.  9,  9.  34.  26,  31. f 


laws  of  P,  it  is  worth  remarking-,  are,  as  a  rule,  formulated  differently  from  those 
of  either  JE  or  D  (contrast  ^.^.  the  ^  DHX,  ^3  C'2J,  IN  t;"^?,  ""D  HC'N  etc. 
of  Lev.  I,  2.  4,  2.  5,  I.  15.  13,  2.  29,  38.  Nu.  5,  6.  6,  2  al.  with  the  t^'^X  ''31  of 
Ex.  21,  7.  14,  20.  26,  etc.),  and  show  besides  differences  of  terminology,  which, 
however,  the  reader  must  be  left  to  note  for  himself. 

1  Were  these  expressions  ro;//?-'/^^'  to  the  legal  sections,  it  might  be  argued  that 
they  were  the  work  of  the  same  hand  as  JE,  who,  with  a  change  of  subject, 
adopted  naturally  an  altered  phraseology  ;  but  tliey  are  found  repeatedly  in  the 
narrative  parts  of  the  Hexateuch,  where  tlie  peculiar  phraseology  cannot  be  at- 
tributed to  the  special  character  of  the  subject  (e.g.  Gen.  6-9.  Ex.  6,  2-7,  13.  c. 
16.  Nu.  13-14.  16-17.  Josh.  22,  9  ff.). 


1Y6  APPENDIX 

8.  Di^'O  in  the  sf.  c,  in  cases  where  ordinarily  HND  would  be  said  : 

Gen.  5,  3.  6.  18.  25.  28.  7,  24.  8,  3,  11,  10.  25.  21,  5.  25,  7.  17. 
35,  28.  47,  9.  28.  Ex.  6,  16.  18.  20.  38,  25.  27  (thrice).  Nu   2,  g. 

16.  24.  31.  33,  39.  So  besides  only  Neh.  5,  11  (prob.  corrupt). 
2  Ch.  25,  9  Qri.  Est.  i,  4.]  (Peculiar.  P  uses  HNO  in  such 
cases  only  twice,  Gen.  17,  17.  23,  i.) 

9.  To  expire  i^\i)  :  Gen.  6,  17.  7,  21.  25,  8.  17.  35,  29.  49,  33.  Nu.  17.  12. 

13.  20,  3  <^/j-.  29,  Josh.  22,  20.  (Only  besides  in  poetry  :  Zech. 
13,  8.  Ps.  88,  16.  104,  29  Lam.  i,  19  ;  and  8  times  in  Job.)f 

10.  IVt^/i  theeijiim,  etc.)  appended  to  an  enumeration  :  Gen.  6,  18.  7,  7. 

13.  8,  16.  18.  9,  8.  28,4.  46,  6.  7.  Ex.  28,  I.  41.  29,  21  bis.  Lev. 
8,  2.  30.  10,  9.  14.  15  (25,  41.  54  Dy).  Nu.  18,  I.  2.  7.  II.  19  bis. 
Similarly  a/ier you  {thee.,  etc.)  appended  to  "  seed  :  "  Gen.  9,  9. 

17,  7  bis.  8.  9.  10.  19.  35,  12.  48,  4.  Ex.  28,  43.  Nu  25,  13. 

11.  And  Noah  did  {so) ;  according  to,  etc.  :  Gen.  6,  22  :  exactly  the  same 

form  of  sentence,  Ex.  7,  6.  12,  28.  50  39,  32^  40,  16.  Nu.  i, 
54.  2,  34.  8,  20.  17,  II  [Heb.  26]  :  cf.  Ex.  39,  43.  Nu.  5,  4.  9,  5. 

12.  This  selfsaf?ie  day  (nTH  DVH  DVJ?) :  Gen.  7,  13.   17,  23.  26.  Ex.  12, 

17.  41.  51.  Lev.  23,  14.  21.  28.  29.  30.  Dt.  32,  48.  Josh.  5,  11. 
ID,  27  (not  P  :  probably  the  compiler).  Ez.  2,  3.  24,  2  bis.  40,  i.f 

13.  After  their  families  (^rs""  DmnDL''^^) :  Gen.  8,  19.  10,  5.  20.  3[.  36, 

40.  Ex.  6,  17.  25.  12,  21.^  Nu.  I  (13  times).  2,  34.  3-4  (15  times). 
II,  10  (JE).  26  (16  times)  29,  12.  33,  54.  Josh.  13,  15.  23.  24. 
28.  29.  31.  15,  I.  12.  20.  16,  5.  8.  17,  2  bis.  18,  II.  20.  21.  28. 
19  (12  times).  21,  7.  33.  40  (Heb.  38).  i  Sa.  10,  21.  i  Ch.  5,  7. 
6,  62.  63  (Heb.  47.  48,  from  Josh.  21,  33.  3S).f 

14.  7^7  as  regards  all,  with  a  generalizing  force  =  najnely,  I  mean 

(Ewald,  §310''):  Gen.  9,  IO^  23,  lo^.  Ex.  14,  28  (cf.  9  l^^m). 
27,  3.  19  (si  vera  1  ).  28,  38.  36  I*".  Lev.  5,  3.  11,  26.  42.  16,  16. 
21.  22.  18.  Nu.  4,  27.  31.  32.  5,  9.  tS,  4.  8.  9.  Ez.  44,  9.  (Prob. 
a  juristic  use.     Occasionally  elsewhere,  esp.  in  Ch.) 

15.  An  everlasting  covenant :  Gen.  9,  16.  17,  7.  13.  19.  Ex.31,  16.  Lev. 

24,  8  ;  cf.  Nu.  18,  19.  25,  13.* '■^ 


1  The  isolated  occurrence  of  this  expression  in  JE  does  not  make  it  the  less 
characteristic  of  P.  Of  course  the  writer  of  Ex.  12,  21  was  acquainted  with  the 
word  nnDC*0,  and  could  use  it,  if  he  pleased,  in  combination  with  7.  It  is  the 
frequency  of  the  combination  which  causes  it  to  be  characteristic  of  a  particular 
author.  For  the  same  reason  zvdiq  is  characteristic  of  St.  Mark's  style,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  the  other  evangelists  employ  it  occasionally.  The  same 
remark  holds  good  of  Nos.  12,  15,  17,  22,  38,  41,  etc. 

^  The  asterisk  indicates  that  all  passages  of  the  Hexateuch  in  which  the  word 
or  phrase  quoted  occurs  are  cited  or  referred  to. 


CHARACTERISTIC   WORDS  AND  PflRASES  177 

16.  Excet'c/i/i^i;-/}'  {m^  li<*2i2,  not  the  usual  phrase):  Gen.  17,  2.  6.  20. 

Ex  I,  7.  Ez.  9,  9.  16,  13.1 

17.  SuMance  (1^)21) :  Gen.  12,  5.  13,  6.  31,  iS.  36,  7.  46,  6.  Nu.  16,  32 

^«^-  35.  3-  Elsewhere  (not  P)  :  Gen.  14,  11.  12.  16  dis.  21.  15. 
14  ;  and  in  Ch.  Ezr.  Dan.  (15  times). f 

18.  To  _§^(7t/ic'r  {'^'21— co£^na.te  with  "substance"):  Gen.   12.  5.  31,  18 

dis.  36,  6    46.  6.f 

19.  Sou/  {^'^^)  in  the  sense  oi person  :  Gen.  12,  5.  36,  6.  46,  15.  18.  22. 

25.  26.  27.  Ex.  I,  5.  12,  4.  16  (RV.  man).  19.  16,  16  (RV.  per- 
sons). Lev.  2,  I  (RV.  one-).  4,  2.  27.  5,  i.  2  ;  and  often  in  the 
legal  parts  of  Lev.  Num.  (as  Lev.  17,  12.  22,  11.  27,  2)  Nu. 
31,  28.  35.  40.  46  (in  the  account  of  the  war  with  Midian). 
Josh.  20,  3.  9  (from  Nu.  35,  11.  15).  See  also  below,  No.  25"*. 
A  usage  not  confined  to  P,  but  much  more  frequent  in  P  than 
elsewhere. 

20.  Throughout  your  {their)  generations  (DDTlIlP    Dn"n!?) :   Gen.    17, 

7.  9.  12.  Ex.  12,  14.  17.  42.  16,  32.  33.  27,  21.  29,  42.  30,  8.  10. 
21.  31.  31,  13.  16.  40,  15.  Lev.  3,   17.  6,  II,  7,  36.  10,  9.  17,  7. 

21,  17.  22,  3.  23,  14.  21.  31.  41.  24,  3.  25,  30  {his).  Nu.  9,  10. 
10,  8.  15,  14.  15.  21.  23.  38.  18,  23.  35,  29.1 

21.  Sojournings  (D''"l"i:i?0),  with  land :  Gen.  17,  8.  28,  4.  36,  7.  37,  i.  Ex. 

6,  4.  Ez.  20,  38  ;  with  days :  Gen.  47,  9  bis.  Only  besides  Ps. 
119,  54;  and  rather  differently  55,  16.  Job  18,  19! 

22.  Possession  (HTriX) :  Gen.  17,  8.  23,  4.  9.  20.  36,  43.  47,  11.  48,  4.  49, 

30.  50,  13.  Lev.  14,  34.  25,  10-46.  27,  16.  21.  22.  24.  28.  Nu.  27, 

4.  7.  32,  5.  22.  29.  32.  35,  2.  8.  28.  Dt.  32,  49.  Josh.  21,  12.  39. 

22,  4  (D^).  9.  19  bis.     Elsewhere  only  in  Ezekiel  (44,  28  bis.  45, 

5.  6.  7  bis.  8.  46,  i6.  18  ter.  48,  20.  21.  22  bis)  ;  Ps.  2,  8  ;  i  Ch. 

7,  28.  9,  2  (==  Neh.  II,  3).  2  Ch.  11,  14.  31.  i.f 

23.  The  cognate  verb  to  get  possessions  (TriK^),  rather  a  peculiar  word: 

Gen.  34,  10   47,  27.  Nu.  32,  30.  Josh.  22,  9.  19. f 

24.  Purchase,  purchased  possession  iX^l'^'O):  Gen.  17,  12.  13.  23.  27.  23, 

18.  Ex.  12,  44.  Lev.  25,  16  bis.  51.  27,  22.  (Prob.  a  legal  term. 
Only  besides  Jer.  22,  11.  12.  14.  16. )f 

25.  Peoples  (D^^y)  in  the  sense  of  kinsfolk  (peculiar) : 

{a)  That  soul  (or  that  inan)  shall  he  cut  off  from  his  kinsfolk  : 
Gen.  17,  14.  Ex.  30,  33.  38.  31,  14.  Lev.  7,  20.  21.  25.  27.  17, 
9.  19,  8.  23,  29.  Nu.  9,  i3f.   (In  Lev.  17,  4    10.  18,  29,  20,  3.  5. 

6.  18.  23,  30.  Nu.  15,  30  the  noun  is  singular.) 

{b)  To  be  gathered  to  ones  kinsfolk  :  Gen.  25,  8.  17.  35,  29.  49, 
33.  Nu.  20,  24.  27,  13.  31,  2.  Dt.  32,  50  bis.\ 


178  APPENDIX 

(c)  Lev.  TQ,  1^1.  21,  I.  4.   14.  15.  Ez.  iS,  iS:  perhaps  Jud.   5, 
14.  Hos.  10.  14. f 

26.  SeU/er  or  sojourner  {2\^T\) '■  Gen.  23,  4  (hence  Ps.  39,  13.  i  Ch.  29, 

15).  Ex.  12,  45.  Lev.  22,  10.  25,  6.  23.  35.  40.  45.  47  dis.  Nu. 
35,  15.     Also  I  Ki.  17.  I  (text  doubtfulj.f 

27.  Getting,  acquisition  (pJp) :  Gen.  31,    18.  34.  23.  36,  6.  Lev.  22,  il. 

Josh.  14,  4  :  cf.  Ez.  38,  12  f.  ;  also  Pr.  4,  7.  Ps.  104,  24.  105,  21. f 

28.  i?z;^^«r  (-[IS)  :  Ex.  i,  13.  14.  Lev.  25.  43.  46.  53.  Ez.  34,  4.f 

29.  Judgments  (D'^LDDJ^*  [not  the  usual  word]):  Ex.  6,  6.  7,  4.  12,  12.  Nu. 

33,  4.  Ez.  5,  10.  15.  II,  9.  14,  21.  16,  41.  25,  II.  28,  22.  26.  30, 
14.  19.  Pr.  19,  29.  2  Ch.  24,  24.1 

30.  Fathers'  houses  (=  families  :  ni3S  7V2,  or  sometimes  T\'\1'^  alone) : 

Ex.  6,  14.  25.  12,  3.  Nu.  1-4  (often).  17,  2.  3.  6.  26,  2.  31,  26. 
32,  28.  34,  14.  36,  I.  Josh.  14,  I.  19,  51.  2[,  I.  22,  14. 

31.  Hosts  (niK3V)  of  the  Israelites  :  Ex.  6,  26.  7,  4.  12,  17.  41.  51.  Nu. 

I,  3.  52.  2,  3.  9.  10.  16.  18,  24.  25.  32.  10,  14.  18.  22.  25.  28.  33, 
I.*     (Dt.  20,  9  differently.) 

32.  Congregation  (illy)  of  the  Israelites  :  Ex.  12,  3,  6.  19.  47.  16,  i.  2. 

9.  10.  22.  17,  I.  34,  31.  35,  I.  4.  20.  38,  25.  Lev.  4,  13.  15.  8, 
3-5,  9,  5.  10,  6.  17.  16,  5.  19,  2.  24,  14.  16.  Nu.  13,  26  bis.  14, 

1.  2.  5.  7.  10.  27.  35.  36.  16,  2.  3.  9  bis.  19  bis.  21.  22  (Lev.  10, 
6).  24.  26.  41.  42.  45,  46.  [Heb.  17,6.  7,  10.  11].  20,  I  2.  8  bis. 
II.  22.  27.  29.  25,  6.  7.  31,  12.  16.  26.  27.  43  (as  well  as  often 
in  the  other  chapters  of  Nu.  assigned  wholly  to  P).  32,  2.  4. 
Josh.  9,  15.  18  bis.  ig.  21.  27.  18,  I.  20,  6.  9.  22,  12.  16.  17.  18 
(Nu.  16,  22).  20.  30.  (Cf.  No,  39.)  Never  in  JEor  Dt.,  and  rare 
in  the  other  hist,  books  :  Jud.  20,  i.  21,  10.  13.  16.  i  Ki.  8,  5 
(=  2  Ch.  5,  6).  12,  20. 

33.  Betweeti  the  tzuo  evenings  :  Ex.  12,  6,  16,  12.  29,  39,  41,  30,  8.  Lev. 

23,  5.  Nu.  9,  3,  5.  II.  28,  4.  8.f 

34.  /;/  all  your  dwellings  (DSTlHE^lC  ?32) :  Ex.  12,  20.  35,  3.  Lev.  3, 

17.  7,  26.  23,  3.  14.  21.  31.  Nu.  35,  29  (cf.  15,  2,  31,  10).  Ez.  6, 
6.  14. 

35.  This  is  the  thing  which  Jehovah  hath  commanded :  Ex.  16,  16.  32. 

35,  4,  Lev.  8,  5.  9,  6.  17,  2.  Nu.  30,  2.  36,  6,f 

36.  A  headixh'h'^  lit.  skull)  in  enumerations  :  Ex.  16,  16.  38,  26.  Nu   i, 

2.  18.  20.  22.  3,  47.  I  Ch,  23,  3.  24. f 

37.  To  remain  over  i^'^  :  not  the  usual  word)  :  Ex.  16,  18.  23.  26,  12 

bis.  13.  Lev.  25,  27.  Nu.  3,  46.  48.  49.! 

38.  Ruler  or  prince  (X"'tJ'J),  among  the  Israelites  :  Ex.    16,  22.  35.  27. 

Lev.  4,  22.  Nu.  I,  16.  44.  cc.  2.  3.  and  7  (repeatedly).  4,  46.  10, 


CHARACTERISTIC  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  179 

4.  13,  2.  17,  2.  6  (Heb.  17.  21).  25,  14.  18.  34,  1S-2S.  Josh.  22, 
14.  In  JE  once  only,  Ex.  22,  27  :  never  in  Dt.  Jud.  Sam.  :  in 
Kings  only  i  Ki.  8,  i,  and  in  a  semi-poetical  passage,  11,  34. 
Cf.  Gen.  17,  20.  23,  6.  25,  16.  3;,  2.  Often  in  Ez.,  even  of  the 
king. 

39.  Rulers  {princes)  of  {or  in)  the  congregation  :  Ex.  16,  22.  34,  31.  Nu. 

4,  34.  16,  2.  31,  13.  32,  2.  Josh,  g,  15.  18  (cf.  ig.  21),  22,  30 
(cf.  32):  cf.  Nu.  27,  2.  36,  I.  Josh.  17,  4.f 

40.  Deep  rest  (pn^'J') :  Ex.  16,  23.  31,  15.  35,  2.  Lev.  16,  31.  23,  3.  24. 

32.  3g  bis.  25,  4.  s.f 

41.  According  to  the  command  (lit.  mouth)  of  Jehovah  (niH''  ''D  PJ?) :  Ex. 

17,  1.  Lev.  24,  12.  Nu.  3,  16.  39.  51.  4,  37.  41.  45.  49.  g,  18.  20. 
23.  10,  13.  13.  3.  33.  2.  38.  36,  5.  Josh.  15,  13  (^N).  17,  4  (^N). 
19,  50.  21,  3  (^i<).  22,  g.  Very  uncommon  elsewhere  :  Dt.  34, 
5^  (probably  from  P  :  cf.  Nu.  33,  3S).  2  Ki.  24,  3. 

42.  Half{pr)in'0:  not  the  usual  word) :  Ex.  30,  13  bis.  15.  23.  38,  26. 

Lev.  6,  13  bis.  Nu.  31,  2g.  30.  42.  47.  Josh.  21,  25  (=  i  Ch.  6, 
55).     Only  besides  i  Ki.  16,  9.  Neh.  8,  3.  i  Ch.  6,  46.f 

43.  ^yp  to  trespass  and  ^y^  /r^-r/ajj- (often  combined,  and  then  rendered 

in  RV.  to  commit  a.  trespass) :  Lev.  5,  15.  6,  2  [Heb.  5,  21].  26, 
40.  Nu,  5,  6.  12.  27.  31,  16.  Dt.  32,  51.  Josh.  7,  I.  22,  16.  20.  22. 
31.*  Ez.  14,  13.  15,  8.  17,  20.  18,  24.  20,  27.  39,  23.  26.  (A  word 
belonging  to  the  priestly  terminology.  Never  in  Jud.,  Sam., 
Kgs.,  or  other  prophets  [except  Dan.  9,  7]  :  and  chiefly  else- 
where in  Ch.) 

44.  The  methodical  form  of  subscription  and  superscription  :  Gen.  10, 

[5].  20.  30.  31.  25,  16.  36,  ig.  20.  31.  40.  43.  46,  8.  15.  18.  22.  25. 
Ex.  I,  I.  6,  14.  16.  ig''.  25^  26.  Nu.  i,  44-  4-  28.  33.  37.  41.  45. 
7,  17^  23''.  2g'' etc.  84.  33,  I.  Josh.  13,  23**.  28.  32.  14,  i.  15, 
12I'.  20.  16,  8''.  18,  20.  28^  ig,  8^  16.  23.  31.  39.  48.  f  I  [cf.  Gen 
10,  30.  31J.  21,  ig.  26.  33.  40.  41-42.  (Not  a  complete  enumer- 
ation). 

45.  For  tribe  P  has  nearly  always  riD^.  very  rarely  D^Ii* ;  for  to  beget 

"l^^in  (Gen.  5,  3-32.  6,  10.  11,  11-27.  17,  20.  25,  ig.  48,  6.  Lev. 
25,  45.  Nu.  26,  2g.  58),  not  ^p"*  (as  in  the  genealogies  of  J  : 
Gen.  4,  18  ter.  10,  8.  13.  15,  24  bis.  26.  22,  23.  25,  3)  ;  for  to  be 
hard  or  to  harden  (of  the  heart)  pTH,  pTH  lit.  to  be  or  make  strong 
(Ex.  7.  13  22.  8,  ig  [Heb  15].  g,  12.  14,  4.  8.  17),  not  133, 
1^33n  lit.  to  be  or  make  heavy  (Ex.  7,  14.  8,  15.  32  [Heb.  11.  28]. 
9,  7.  34.  10,  i) ;  for  to  stone  D^l"!  (Lev.  20,  2.  27.  24,  14.  16  bis. 
23.  Nu.  14,  10.  15,  35.  36  :  also  Dt.  21,  21.  Josh.  7,  25"  [?  PJ*), 


IgO  APPENDIX 

not  i^pD  (Ex.  8,  26  [Heb.  22].  17,  4.  19,  13  bis.  21,  28  bis.  29. 
32.  Dt.  13,  10  [Heb.  11].  17,  5.  22,  21.  24.  Josh  7,  25''*)  ;  for 
/^  J/^"lin  (Nu.  13,  2.  16.  17.  21.  25.  32  ^/j.  14,  6.  7.  34.  36.  38. 
15,  39  :  also  10,  33  JE.  Dt.  i,  33  *),  not  ^n  (Nu.  21,  32.  Dt.  i, 
24.  Josh.  2,  I.  6,  22.  23.  25.  7,  2  ^/j.  14,  7) ;  and  for  the  pron. 
of  I  ps.  sing.  ^JX  (nearly  130  times  ;  ''3JX  once  only  Gen.  23, 
4  :  comp.  in  Ez.  ^JX  138  times,  "'DJN  once  36,  28). 


III. 

THE  GENESIS   OF  THE  TEN   WORDS. 
The  Ten  Commaiidnients.^ 

I.  Thou  shalt  have  none  other  gods  before  me. 

II.  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  a  graven  image 
\nor,  E],  any  form  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth 
beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  :  thou  shalt  not 
bow  down  thyself  unto  them,  nor  be  led  to  serve  them :  for  I 
Yahweh  thy  God  am  a  zealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children,  \a7id,  Dj  upon  the  third  and  upon  the 
fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me ;  and  shewing  mercy 
unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my  command- 
ments. 

III.  Thou  shalt  not  take  the  name  of  Yahweh  thy  God 
IN  VAIN;  for  Yahweh  will  not  hold  him  guiltless  that  taketh  his 
name  in  vain. 

IV.  Remember  ["Observe,"  DJ  the  Sabbath  day  to  keep 
IT  holy. 


Exodus. 
Six  days  shalt  thou  labour,  and 
do  all  thy  work  :  but  the  seventh 
day  is  a  sabbath  unto  Yahweh 
thy  God  :  \in  it\  thou  shalt  not 


Deuteronomy, 
as  Yahweh  thy  God  commanded 
thee.      Six  days  shalt  thou  la- 
bour, and  do  all  thy  work ;  but 
the  seventh   day   is  a  sabbath 


do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  j  unto  Yahweh  thy  God  :  [in  it] 
nor    thy    daughter,    thy    man-  \  thou    shalt   not   do    any   work, 


[*  The  small  capitals  give  the  original  words.  Where  the  versions  agree  in 
speciilcations  and  reasons,  they  are  not  distinguished  ;  but  wliere  they  disagree, 
ihey  appear  in  parallel  columns,  with  the  difference  indicated  by  italics.  In  a 
few  cases  of  minor  difference,  the  variation  is  placed  in  brackets.] 

(I8i) 


182 


APPENDIX 


servant,  nor  thy  maid-servant, 
nor  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stranger 
that  is  within  thy  gates:  for  in 
six  days  Yahvveh  made  heaven 
and  earth,  the  sea,  and  all  that 
in  them  is,  and  rested  the 
seventh  day  :  wherefore  Yahweh 
blessed  the  sabbath  day,  and 
hallowed  it. 


V.  Honour  thy  father  an 
that  thy  days  may  be  long  upon 
the  land  which  Yahweh  thy  God 
giveth  thee. 


thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor  thy 
daughter,  7ior  thy  man-servant, 
nor  thy  maid-servant,  nor  iJiine 
ox,  iior  t/ii'ne  ass,  nor  a?iy  of  thy 
cattle,  nor  thy  stranger  that  is 
within  thy  gates  :  i7i  order  that 
thy  ma7i-serva7it  a7id  thy  tTiaid- 
servaTtt  jtiay  rest  as  well  as  thou. 
A7id  thou  shall  re7ne77iber  that 
thou  wast  a  se7'va7it  in  the  la7id 
of  Egypt,  aTid  Yahweh  thy  God 
brought  thee  out  the7ice  by  a 
77iighty  ha7id,  atid  by  a  stretchcd- 
out  ar77i  ;  therefore  Yahweh  thy 
God  C077ii7ia7ided  thee  to  keep  the 
sabbath  day, 
D  THY  mother: 
as  Yahweh  thy  God  C0J7i77ia7ided 
thee :  that  thy  days  may  be  long : 
a7id  that  it  77iay  be  well  with  thee 
upon  the  land  which  Yahweh 
thy  God  giveth  thee. 


VI.  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder. 

VII.  f"And,"D].  Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery. 

VIII.  ["And,"D].  Thou  shalt  not  steal. 

IX.  ["  And,"  DJ.  Thou  shalt  not  bear  witness  against 
thy  neighbour  to  a  lie  ["to  a  vain  thing,"  D]. 

X.  ["And,"  D].  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbour's 
house  \wife,  D]. 


Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigh- 
bour's wife,  nor  his  man-ser- 
vant, nor  his  maid-servant,  nor 
his  ox,  nor  his  ass,  nor  any  thing 
that  is  thy  neighbour's. 


a7id  thou  shalt  not  desire  thy 
neighbour's  house,  his  field,  or 
his  man-servant,  or  his  maid- 
servant, his  ox,  or  his  ass,  or  any 
thing  that  is  thy  neighbour's. 


It  will  first  be  necessary  to  separate  the  work  of  the  Deuter- 
onomist.  We  have  already  seen  that  he  has  changed  slightly  the 
language  of  three  of  the  Ten  Words.  We  should  expect,  there- 
fore, that  in  the  reasons  he  would  be  freer  still.     His  changes 


THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  TEN  WORDS        ;[33 

h-ivcbeen  in  commands  four,  five,  and  ten.  In  the  specifications 
of  the  fourth  command,  he  adds  "  nor  thine  ox,  nor  thine  ass, 
nor  any  of  [thy  cattle]  ";  so,  in  the  specification  of  the  .eiith 
command,  he  adds  "  his  field."  But  the  most  striking  diffeicnce 
is  in  the  reason  of  the  fourth  command,  which  is  totally  ditter- 
cnt  from  the  reason  given  in  Exodus.  The  reason  given  in 
Deuteronomy  is  so  characteristic  of  the  author's  style,  and  of  his 
usage  elsewhere,  that  no  one  can  doubt  that  this  reason  is  pecul- 
iar to  him,  and  that  he  has  added  it  to  the  fourth  command. 
See  the  reason  for  the  observance  of  the  year  of  release  (Deut. 
XV.  15),  the  Passover  (xvi.  11,  12),  and  the  regard  for  the  poor 
(xxiv.  18,  22).  Besides  these  additions,  we  observe  the  phrase 
"as  Yahvveh  thy  God  commanded  thee"  appended  immediately 
to  the  fourth  and  fifth  words,  and  the  additional  reason,  "and 
that  it  may  be  well  with  thee,"  added  to  the  fifth  command, — a 
reason  which  is  a  favorite  one  in  Deuteronomy  (v.  29;  vi.  18; 
xii.  25).  It  would  seem,  therefore,  quite  evident,  that  all  of 
these  variations  of  Deuteronomy  are  additions  in  the  way  of  en- 
largement, paraphrase,  explanation,  and  enforcement  of  the  Ten 
Words. 

Looking  now  at  the  version  of  Exodus,  we  note  that  the  reason 
for  the  observance  of  the  sabbath  is  peculiar  to  it.  It  is  not  at 
all  likely  that  the  author  of  Deuteronomy  would  have  taken  the 
liberty  of  cutting  off  any  portions  of  the  commands  as  they 
were  known  to  him,  and  substituting  another  and  very  different 
reason  for  the  one  previously  given.  It  would  seem,  therefore, 
that  this  reason  of  Exodus  is  a  later  addition  to  the  command, 
no  less  than  the  additions  that  we  have  found  in  Deuteronomy. 

The  writer  or  editor  of  Exodus  xx.  in  its  present  form,  clearly 
had  before  him  the  same  command  as  the  author  of  Deuter- 
onomy, with  the  exception  of  the  Deuteronomic  additions  and 
this  reason  of  the  fourth  command.  It  is  not  difficult  to  trace 
the  origin  of  this  reason.  We  find  it  essentially  in  Genesis  ii.  2, 
3:  "And  on  the  seventh  day  God  finished  his  work  which  he 
had  made ;  and  he  rested  on  the  seventh  day  from  all  his  work 
which  he  had  made.  And  God  blessed  the  seventh  day  and 
hallowed  it ;  because  that  in  it  he  rested  from  all  his  work 
which  God  had  created  and  made." 

These  passages  are  recognized  as  belonging  to  the  priestly 


184 


APPENDIX 


narrative  and  the  priests'  code  (P).  It  would  seem,  therefore, 
that  this  addition  to  the  fourth  command  is  due  to  him.  The 
other  parts  of  the  commands  are  common  to  the  versions,  and 
we  can  find  nothing  more  that  can  be  ascribed  to  the  priestly 
narrator  except  a  single  word  in  the  fourth  command,  to  be  con- 
sidered later. 

We  have  now  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  remaining  specifica- 
tions and  reasons.  We  begin  with  the  second  command.  The 
second  part  of  the  reason  appended  to  this  command,  we  find  in 
essentiall}^  the  same  form  in  Exodus  xxxiv.  6,  7,  in  the  great  reve- 
lation of  the  Divine  grace  by  the  theophanic  voice  to  Moses: 
"  Yahweh,  Yahweh,  a  God  full  of  compassion  and  gracious,  slow 
to  anger,  and  plenteous  in  mercy  and  faithfulness;  keeping 
mercy  for  thousands,  forgiving  iniquity  and  transgression  and 
sin :  and  that  will  by  no  means  clear  [the  guilty] ;  visiting  the 
iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children's 
children,  upon  the  third  and  upon  the  fourth  generation." 

We  find  also,  in  the  little  Book  of  the  Covenant,  the  first 
part  of  the  reason,  thus  :  "  For  Yahweh,  whose  name  is  Zealous, 
is  a  zealous  God  "  (Exod.  xxxiv.  14).  Now,  both  of  these  passages 
belong  to  the  writing  of  the  Judaic  narrator  (J).  It  seems 
clear,  therefore,  that  he  must  have  appended  this  reason  to  the 
second  command ;  and  certainly  nothing  could  be  more  appro- 
priate. Moreover,  in  the  specifications  we  have  the  same  verb 
as  in  Exodus  xxxiv.  14,  although  this  fact  is  obscured  by  the  Re- 
vised Version,  which  renders  the  verb  in  the  second  command 
"  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself,"  but  in  the  little  Book  of 
the  Covenant,  "Thou  shalt  worship  [no  other  god]."  It  seems 
probable,  therefore,  that  the  specifications,  as  well  as  the  reason, 
of  the  second  command,  belong  to  J. 

The  reason  appended  to  the  third  command  reminds  us  of  the 
phrase  "  will  not  hold  [him]  guiltless  "  of  the  theophanic  words 
already  referred  to  in  connection  with  the  reason  of  the  previous 
command,  where  we  find  the  same  verb  7iaqah,  which  is  obscured 
by  the  Revised  Version  in  its  rendering  "  and  that  will  by  no 
means  clear  [the  guilty],"  which  is  a  singularly  bad  translation 
in  other  respects  (Exod.  xxxiv.  7).  This  favors  the  opinion  that 
this  reason,  like  the  previous  one,  was  derived  from  J. 

The    specifications  of    the  fourth  command  are  more  dif- 


THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  TEN   WORDS  ^35 

ficult.  They  seem  to  combine  material  from  E  as  well  as  J.  J 
i^ives  us  two  sabbath  laws.  One  of  these  is  in  the  little  Book  of 
the  Covenant  (Exod.  xxxiv.  21):  "Six  days  shalt  thou  labour, 
and  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt  keep  sabbath.  In  ploughing 
and  reaping,  thou  shalt  keep  sabbath."  Here  great  stress  is  laid 
upon  abstinence  from  labor,  even  in  the  busiest  seasons  of  the 
year.  The  first  clause,  "  Six  days  shalt  thou  labour,"  is  the  same 
in  both  commands,  although  here  again  the  Revised  Version  has 
made  a  difference  by  rendering  the  one  "  labour  "  and  the  other 
"  work." 

Exodus  xvi.  gives  an  account  of  the  sabbath  in  connection  with 
the  giving  of  the  manna.     Here  the  narratives  of  P  and  J  are 
combined.     In  the  parts  belonging  to  J  we  find  the  following: 
"  For  to-day  is  a  sabbath  unto  Yahweh  :  to-day  ye  shall  not  find 
it  in  the  field.     Six  days  ye  shall  gather  it :  but  on  the  seventh 
day  is  the  sabbath.     In  it  there  shall  be  none.  .  .  .  See,  for  that 
Yahweh  hath  given  you  the  sabbath.  ...  So  the  people  rested 
on  the  seventh  day  "  (Exod.  xvi.  25-30).     Here  we  notice  the 
phrase  "sabbath  unto  Yahweh,"  which  recurs  in  the  specification 
of  the  fourth  command.     It  seems  likely,  therefore,  that  in  these 
two  phrases  we  have  the  version  of  J.     But  there  remain  some 
very  striking  features  that  cannot  be  found  in  J,  and  these  we 
find  in  E.     The  greater  Book  of  the  Covenant  gives  the  sabbath 
law  of  E  thus  :  "  Six  days  shalt  thou  do  thy  work,  and  on  the 
seventh  day  thou  shalt  keep  sabbath  :  that  thine  ox  and  thine 
ass  may  have  rest,  and  the  son  of  thy  maid-servant  and  the 
stranger  may  be  refreshed."     We  observe  that  this  law  lays  stress 
upon  the  refreshment  of  the  animal,  servant,  and  stranger,  rather 
than  upon  abrtinence  from  labor.    This  striking  feature  of  the 
command,  not  found  in  J,  is  characteristic  of  E  elsewhere  also 
in  his  code  of  legislation.     We  have  seen  that  the  first  clause, 
"  Six  days  thou  shalt  labour,"  belongs  to  J.     To  this  is  now  added 
the  phrase,  "and  do  all  thy  work."     This  resembles  E  in  the 
verb,  but  differs  in  the  noun.     The  command  here  uses  a  noun, 
mehikhah,  which  is  peculiar  to  the  style  of  P.     We  can  ascribe 
this  introduction  of  the  word  instead  of  the  noun  ma'ast'/i  of  E, 
only  to  the  process  of  assimilation  that  was  later  than  any  of  the 
versions,  and  which  strongly  tended  in  the  direction  of  Genesis 
ii.  2,  3.     Hence,  in  the  clause  "thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,"  the 


IQQ  APPENDIX 

same  phrase  is  repeated,  and  then  follow  the  specifications.  E 
gives  specifications  of  the  ox  and  ass  where  the  command  uses 
"  cattle,"  and  son  of  thy  maid-servant  and  stranger  where  the 
command  gives  "  thy  maid-servant  and  stranger."  The  command, 
however,  adds  "son  and  daughter  and  man-servant."  It  seems 
likely  that  these  specifications  all  belong  to  E. 

There  is  one  difficulty  remaining.  E  gives  us  simply  "the 
stranger" ;  but  the  command,  "thy  stranger  which  is  within  thy 
gates."  The  phrase  "  within  thy  gates"  is  Deuteronomic.  It 
seems  likely  that  this  has  come  into  the  text  of  Exodus  by  as- 
similation to  the  text  of  Deuteronomy  at  a  late  date,  just  as 
melakhah  above  is  an  assimilation  to  Genesis  ii.  2.  This  is 
favored  by  the  Septuagint  Version,  which  uses  instead  of  it 
"  among  thee,"  as  if  it  read  a  different  Hebrew  word.  We  should 
not  be  surprised  at  so  many  changes  in  the  fourth  command  ;  for 
it  recurs  so  many  times,  and  in  so  many  different  forms,  in  the 
several  narratives  and  codes. 

The  reason  appended  to  the  fifth  word  is  also  Deuteronomic 
(see  Deut.  iv.  40;  vi.  2  ,  xi.  9).  This  must  also  be  a  late  addi- 
tion to  the  version  of  Exodus  by  assimilation  to  the  version 
of  Deuteronomy. 

The  specifications  of  the  tenth  command  are  like  those  of  the 
fourth,  and  doubtless  came  from  the  same  writer,  E.  We  observe 
the  ox  and  the  ass  and  the  maid-servant  of  E  from  Exodus  xxiii. 
12,  and  the  man-servant  of  the  fourth  command.  The  wife  is 
added  here,  for  she  could  hardly  be  missing  in  any  specifications 
here,  whereas  she  would  have  been  unsuitable  in  connection  with 
the  fourth  command. 

Thus  we  have,  for  the  most  part,  traced  the  origin  of  the  rea- 
sons and  specifications  that  have  been  added  to  the  Ten  Words. 
We  have  found  that  each  of  the  four  writings  that  constitute 
our  Pentateuch  has  a  share  in  the  work,  and  that  their  work  has 
enriched  the  commands  and  enlarged  their  interpretation  in 
many  ways.  It  would  be  a  serious  loss  if  we  were  deprived  of 
any  of  them. 

The  Divine  voice  gave  the  Ten  Words  with  thunder  tones  from 
heaven,  and  the  Divine  finger  wrote  them  upon  the  two  tables; 
and  then  the  Divine  Spirit  inspired  the  several  writers  of  the 
Pentateuch,  each  in  his  own  way,  to  illustrate  and  enforce  them 


THE  GENESIS  OF  THE  TEN    WORDS  1,S7 

by  specifications,  reasons,  and  exhortations.  In  later  times  the 
prophets  urged  these  Ten  Words  in  other  ways  ;  and  at  last  our 
Saviour,  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  took  them  up,  removed 
from  them  the  rubbish  of  rabbinical  speculation,  and  set  them  in 
the  bright  sunlight  of  the  gospel,  showing  that  they  are  the 
eternal  words  of  God  for  all  ages  and  for  all  men, — the  guide  of 
the  tongue  and  the  heart  as  well  as  the  outward  act  and  deport- 
ment ;  and  summing  them  all  up  in  the  one  blessed  word  "  love," 
— love  to  God,  and  love  to  our  neighbor. 


IV. 


THE   PESTILENCE   IN   EGYPT. 


J.     Ex.  ix.  I  7. 

"And  Yahweh  said  untoMoses, 
Come  unto  Pharaoh  and  speak 
unto  him.  Thus  saith  Yahweh, 
the  God  of  the  Hebrews,  Let  my 
people  go  that  they  may  serve 
me.  (i).  For  if  thou  refuse  tu 
let  them  go,  and  wilt  hold  them 
still  (2).  Behold  the  hand  of 
Yahweh  is  going  to  be  upon  thy 
cattle,  which  is  in  the  field,  upon 
the  horses,  upon  the  asses,  upon 
the  camels,  upon  the  herds,  and 
upon  the  flocks,  a  very  grievous 
murrain.  (3).  And  Yahweh  will 
sever  between  the  cattle  of  Is- 
rael and  the  cattle  of  Egypt; 
and  there  shall  nothing  die  of 
ail  that  belongeth  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel.  (4).  And  Yahweh 
set  a  time,  saying.  To-morrow 
Yahweh  will  do  this  thing  in  the 
land.  (5).  And  Yahv^h  did  this 
thing  on  the  morrow,  and  all  the 
cattle  of  Egypt  died  ;  but  of  the 
cattle  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael died  not  one.  (6).  And 
Pharaoh  sent  and  behold  not 
even  one  of  the  cattle  of  the 
Israelites  had  died.  But  the 
heart  of  Pharaoh  was  stubborn 
and  he  did  not  let  the  people 

go."  (7). 

(188) 


P.  Ex.  ix.  8-12. 
"  And  Yahweh  said  unto  Mo- 
ses and  unto  Aaron,  Take  to 
you  handfuls  of  ashes  of  the 
furnace,  and  let  Moses  sprinkle 
it  toward  heaven  in  the  sight  of 
Pharaoh.  (8).  And  it  shall  be- 
come small  dust  over  all  the 
land  of  Egypt,  and  shall  be  upon 
man  and  upon  beast  a  boil  break- 
ing forth  with  blains  throughout 
all  the  land  of  Egypt.  (9).  And 
they  took  ashes  of  the  furnace 
and  stood  before  Pharaoh  ;  and 
Moses  sprinkled  it  up  toward 
heaven,  and  it  became  a  boil 
breaking  forth  with  blains  upon 
man  and  upon  beast.  (10).  And 
the  magicians  were  not  able  to 
stand  before  Moses  because  of 
the  boils ;  for  the  boils  were 
upon  the  magicians  and  upon  all 
the  Egyptians.  (11).  And  Yah- 
v/eh  hardened  the  heart  of  Pha- 
raoh and  he  hearkened  not  unto 
them,  as  Yahweh  had  spoken 
unto  Moses."  (12). 


V. 

THE    DECALOGUE    OF    J    AND    ITS     PARALLELS    IN    THE    OTHER 

CODES. 

The  book  which  Moses  was  commanded  to  write  as  the  basis 
of  the  Covenant  according  to  J  (Ex.xxxiv.  27),  is  called  the  little 
book  of  the  Covenant,  to  distinguish  it  from  the  book  which 
Moses  wrote  according  to  E  as  the  basis  of  the  Covenant  at  Horeb 
(Ex.  xxiv.  4)  which  is  called  the  greater  book  of  the  Covenant. 
This  little  book  of  the  Covenant  is  scarcely  larger  than  the  tables 
of  the  Covenant  (Ex.  xx.  1-17).  Indeed  it  is  now  the  opinion  of 
many  critics  that  we  have  here  another  decalogue.  It  is  true  the 
critics  differ  in  their  arrangement  of  these  commands,  but  as  there 
have  always  been  differences  in  the  synagogue  and  the  church  as 
to  the  arrangement  of  the  "  Ten  Commandments  of  the  Tables," 
such  differences  of  opinion  as  to  the  arrangement  of  this  deca- 
logue cannot  destroy  the  consensus  as  to  their  number  in  either 
case.  There  are  some  critics  who  hold  that  this  decalogue  was 
written  upon  the  Tables  (Ex.  xxxiv.  28),  on  account  of  "the 
words  of  the  covenant,"  which  seem  to  go  back  upon  "write  thou 
these  words,  for  upon  the  basis  of  these  words  do  I  conclude  a 
covenant  with  thee  and  v/ith  Israel  "  (v.  27) ;  and  also  on  account 
of  the  verb  3nD>1  which  has  no  subject  expressed  and  where  the 
most  natural  interpretation  finds  the  subject  in  Moses,  the  sub- 
ject of  the  verbs  which  immediately  precede.  If  the  section  Ex. 
xxxiv,  11-28  stood  by  itself  we  could  not  escape  this  conclusion; 
but  if  we  go  back  to  Ex.  xxxiv.  i  we  find  the  promise  that  Yah- 
weh  will  write  upon  these  tables  the  same  commands  that  were 
upon  the  former  tables  destroyed  by  Moses,  and  these  were 
certainly  the  ten  words  of  Ex.  xx.  2-17.  This  certainly  was  the 
opinion  of  the  Redactor. 

We  shall  take  the  decalogue  of  J  as  a  basis  for  our  comparison : 
We  shall  compare  these  laws  of  J  and  E  with  corresponding 
laws  in  the  Deuteronomic  code  (D),  the  code  of  Holiness  (H), 
and  the  Priests'  code  (P).  We  shall  also  bring  into  comparison 
the  Ten  Words  of  the  Tables.  There  are  two  versions  of  these, 
the  one  in  Ex.  xx.  (T  ir),  the  other  in  Deuteronomy  v.  (T  d). 
The  version  in  Ex.  xx.  embraces  material  from  P,  and,  accord- 
ingly, has  embedded  in  it  the  Tables  of  E  and  J.  The  Tables 
in  D  are  called  "  Tables  of  the  Covenant,"  Deut.  ix.  9  ;  in  P 

(189) 


J  90  APPENDIX. 

"Tables  of   the  testimony/'  Ex.  xxxi.   iSa ;    in  E   "Tables  of 
stone,"  Ex.  xxxi.  i8<^;  in  J  "Tables  of  stones,"  Ex.  xxxiv.  i,  4. 

/.   Coininajid. 

J. — "  Surely  ye  shall  not  worship  atiother  God  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  14  a). 
E. — "  Ve  shall  7iot  make  with  Die  gods  of  silver  "  (Ex.  xx.  23  a). 
T. — "  Thou  shall  have  110  other  gods  before  me  "  (Ex.  xx.  3). 
D. — '•  If  there  arise  in  the  midst  of  thee  a  prophet,  ....  say- 
ing, Let  us  go  after  other  gods  ....  and  let  us  serve, 
them,"'  thou  shalt  not  hearken  unto  the  words  of  that 
prophet"  (Dt.  xiii.  2). 
H. — "  Turn  ye  not  ufito  worthless  gods"  (Lev.  xix.  4). 
This  is  the  same  command  in  five  different  codes  (a)  "other 
gods  "  (T  and  D),  =  "  another  god  "  (J),  =  "  gods  of  silver  "  (E),  = 
"  worthless  gods  "  (H) ;  (b)  "  have  "  (T),  =  "  go  after  and  serve  " 
(D),  =  "make"  'E),  =  "turn  unto  "  (H),  =  "worship"  (J);  (c) 
"with  me''  (E),  =  "before  me  "  (T). 

//.  Comjnand. 

J. — "  Molten  gods  thou  shalt  not  7?iake  thee"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  17). 

E. — "  And  gods  of  gold  ye  shall  not  make  you  "  (Ex.  xx.  23  b). 

T. — "  Thou  shalt  not  make  thee  any  graven  image"  (Ex.  xx.  4). 

H. — "  Molten  gods  ye  shall  not  make  you  "  (Lev.  xix.  4). 

D. — "  Cursed  be  the  man  that  7naketh  a  graven  or  molten  image  " 
(Dt.  xxvii.  15). 

"Molten  gods"  (J  and  H),  =  "gods  of  gold  "  (E),  =  "graven 
image  "  (T),  =  "  graven  or  molten  image  "  (D). 

It  is  probable  that  the  reasons  attached  to  these  commands 
were  not  original.  In  J  the  reasons  are  appended  to  the  first 
command. 

"  For  Yahweh,  his  name  is  jealous.  The  jealous  God  is  He.  (Take 
heed)  lest  thou  conclude  a  covenant  with  the  inhabitants  of  the 
land,  and  when  they  go  whoring  after  their  gods  and  sacrifice 
unto  their  gods,  they  invite  thee  and  thou  eat  of  their  peace 
offerings,  and  then  take  some  of  their  daughters  for  thy  sons, 
and  when  their  daughters  go  whoring  after  their  gods  they  make 
thy  sons  go  whoring  after  their  gods  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  14  b,  16).  These 
verses  simply  unfold  the  meaning  of  mp.  As  Yahweh  is  the 
husband  of  Israel  he  demands  the  exclusive  allegiance  of  his 
people.     Any  worship  of  other  gods  is  as  the  neglect  of  her 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.  191 

husband  by  a  wife  and  her  going  after  other  lovers.  Any  par- 
ticipation in  the  sacrificial  meals  of  these  gods  is  committing 
whoredom  with  them.  In  both  versions  of  the  Tables  a  corre- 
sponding reason  is  appended  to  the  second  command. 

"  ( 7ior  T  ci)  any  form  that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the 
earth  beneath,  or  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  ;  thou  shalt 
not  bow  down  thyself  unto  them,  nor  be  led  to  serve  them  :  for  I 
Yahweh  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God,  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the 
fathers  upon  the  children  {and  T  b)  upon  the  third  and  upon  the 
fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me ;  and  shewing  mercy 
unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my  command- 
ments "  (Ex.  XX.  4-6 ;  Dt.  v.  8-10). 

{a).  This  enlargement  of  the  command  has  its  parallel  in  Dt.  iv. 

15-19. 

"  Take  ye,  therefore,  good  heed  unto  yourselves ;  for  ye  saw  no 
manner  of  form  on  the  day  that  Yahweh  spake  unto  you  in  Ho- 
reb  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire :  lest  ye  corrupt  yourselves,  and 
make  you  a  graven  image  in  the  form  of  any  figure,  the  likeness 
of  male  or  female,  the  likeness  of  any  beast  that  is  on  the  earth, 
the  likeness  of  any  winged  fowl  that  flieth  in  the  heaven,  the 
likeness  of  any  thing  that  creepeth  on  the  ground,  the  likeness 
of'any  fish  that  is  in  the  water  under  the  earth  :  and  lest  thou  lift 
up  thine  eyes  unto  heaven,  and  when  thou  seest  the  sun  and  the 
moon  and  the  stars,  even  all  the  host  of  heaven,  thou  be  drawn 
away  and  worship  them  and  serve  them." 

It  is  evident  that  this  is  an  expansion  by  Dof  the  lesser  specifi- 
cation given  in  connection  with  the  Tables.  The  specification  in 
the  Tables  is  earlier  than  D,  and  not  derived  from  D. 

{b).  The  first  part  of  the  reason  of  the  2d  command  of  the  Ta- 
bles is  the  same  essentially  as  the  first  part  of  the  reason  of  the 
decalogue  of  J. 
j._"  For  Yahweh,  his  name  is  jealous.      The  jealous  God  is 

He"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  14  b). 
T._"  For  I,  Yahweh,  thy  God,  am  a  jealous  God  "  (Ex.  xx.  5). 
This  we  may  also  compare  with 
D.— "  For  Yahweh,   thy  God,   is  a  consuming  fire,  a  jealous 

God  "  (Dt.  iv.  24). 
{c).  The  second  part  of  the  reason  of  the  2d  command  of  the 
decalogue  of  the  Tables  we  find  in  essentially  the  same  form  in 
the  revelation  of  the  divine  grace  by  the  thcophanic  voice,  "  Yah- 


192  APPENDIX 

weh,  Yahweh,  a  God  full  of  compassion  and  gracious,  slow  to  an- 
ger, and  plenteous  in  mercy  and  faithfulness :  keeping  mercy  for 
thousands,  forgiving  iniquity  and  transgression  and  sin :  and 
that  will  by  no  means  acquit ;  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers 
upon  the  children,  and  upon  the  children's  children,  upon  the 
third  and  upon  the  fourth  generation"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  6,  7).  This 
passage  certainly  belongs  to  J.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that 
the  whole  of  the  specification  and  reasons  appended  to  the  2d 
command  of  the  Tables  belongs  to  the  document  J, 

(^).  The  larger  portion  of  the  reason  attached  to  the  first  com- 
mand of  the  decalogue  of  worship  in  J  is  not  found  in  T.  We 
find  this  prohibition  of  making  a  covenant  with  the  Canaanites 
in  D. 

"  Thou  shalt  make  no  covenant  with  them,  nor  shew  mercy 
unto  them  :  neither  shalt  thou  make  marriages  with  them ;  thy 
daughter  thou  shalt  not  give  unto  his  son,  nor  his  daughter  shalt 
thou  take  unto  thy  son.  For  he  will  turn  away  thy  son  from 
following  me,  that  they  may  serve  other  gods  ;  so  will  the  anger 
of  Jahveh  be  kindled  against  you,  and  he  will  destroy  thee  quick- 
ly" (Dt.  vii.  2-4). 

The  conception  of  "  whoring  after  other  gods  "  is  found  in  the 
Hexateuch  elsewhere  in  Deut.  xxxi.  16  (J) ;  Lev.  xvii.  7  ;  xx.  5-6 
(H),  and  Num.  xiv.  33  (J  ?) ;  xv.  39  (P).  There  seems  to  be  little 
doubt  that  this  conception  also  is  original  to  J. 

///.  Co??imaiid. 

J. — Six  days  shalt  thou  labor,  but  on  the  seventh  day  thou  shalt 

rest  (Ex.  xxxiv.  21). 
E. — Six  days  shalt  thou  do  thy  ivork,  but  on  the  seventh  day  thou 

shalt  rest  (Ex.  xxiii.  12). 
T  a. — Remember  the  Sabbath  day  to  sanctify  it  (Ex.  xx.  8). 
T  b. — Observe  the  Sabbath  day  to  sanctify  it  (Dt.  v.  12). 
H. —  Ye  shall  observe  my  Sabbaths  (Lev.  xix.  3,  30;  xxvi.  2). 
P. —  Verily  ye  shall  observe  my  Sabbaths  (Ex.  xxxi.  13). 

In  the  decalogue  of  J  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  precedes 
the  Sabbath,  but  in  the  parallel  passage  in  E,  and  in  the  cata- 
logues of  holy  days  in  P,  the  Sabbath  comes  first.  The  reason 
for  this  strange  transposition  it  is  difllicult  to  see. 

J   mentions  the  six  days  as  days  in  which  to   "labor" — "do 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.     l[)o^ 

thy  work  "  (E).  The  seventh  -day  is  for  "  rest,"  n3L*'  (J  E). 
In  the  Tables  "  the  seventh  day  "  gives  place  to  "the  Sabbath," 
nX".  This  is  to  be  "sanctified,"  KHp.  It  is  to  be  "  remembered  " 
(T  a) ;  but  observed  (T  <^,  H,  P).  The  Sabbath  becomes  Sab- 
baths in  H,  P. 
J  gives  an  additional  specification, 

E. — "In  ploughing  and  reaping  thou  shalt  rest"  (Ex.  xxxiv. 
21),  that  is,  in  the  busiest  seasons  of  the  year,  when 
the  temptation  to  labor  would  be  strongest. 
The  Tables  also  give  specifications. 

T  a. — "  Six  days  shalt  thou  labor  and  do  all  thy  work ;    but 
the  seventh  day  is  a  Sabbath  unto  Jahveh  thy  God  : 
thou  shalt  not  do  any  work,  thou,  nor  thy  son,  nor 
thy  daughter,    thy  manservant,  nor  thy  maidservant, 
nor   thy  cattle,   nor  thy  stranger  that  is   within   thy 
gates"  (Ex.  xx.  9,  10). 
T  3. — "  As  Jahveh  thy  God  commanded  thee, — Six  days  shalt 
thou  labor,  and  do  all  thy  work;  but  the  seventh  day 
is  a  Sabbath  unto  Jahveh  thy  God  :  thou    shalt  not 
do   any  work,  thou,  nor   thy  son,  nor  thy  daughter, 
nor  thy  manservant,  nor  thy  maidservant,  nor  thine 
ox,  nor  thine  ass,  nor  any  of  thy  cattle,  nor  thy  stran- 
ger that  is  within  thy  gates"  (Dt.  v.  12-14). 
The  Priest  code  contains  two  sets  of  specifications  from  differ- 
ent sources. 

P  a. — "  Ye   shall  keep  the  Sabbath  therefore ;    for  it  is  holy 
unto  you  :  every  one  that  profaneth  it  shall  be  put  to  a 
violent  death :  for  whosoever  doth  any  work  therein, 
that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his  people.     Six 
days  shall  work  be  done ;  but  on  the  seventh  day  is 
a  Sabbath  of  solemn  rest,  holy  to  Jahveh  :  whosoever 
doeth  any  work  on  the  Sabbath  day,  he  shall   be  put 
to  a  violent  death.     Wherefore  the  children  of  Israel 
shall    keep    the    Sabbath,  to    observe    the    Sabbath 
throughout  their  generations  for  an  everlasting  cove- 
nant "  (Ex.  xxxi.  14-16). 
Compare  also  in  the  catalogue  of  DHyiO  of  P. 
P  3. — "Six  days  shall  work  be  done  :  but  on  the  seventh  day 
is  a  Sabbath  of  solemn  rest,  an  holy  convocation  ;   ye 


[94  APPENDIX. 

shall  do  no  manner  of  work  :  it  is  a  sabbath  unto  Jah- 
veh  in  all  your  dwellings  "  (Lev.  xxiii.  3), 
Compare  also  the  catalogue  of  ritual  offerings,  Num.  xxviii. 
9-10,  where  the  offerings  for  the  Sabbath  are  presented. 

The  specifications  are  two-fold  :  (a)  as  to  the  method  of  ob- 
serving the  day,  and  (^)  as  to  those  who  are  to  observe  it. 

(a).  The  first  object  is  abstinence  from  labor,  HDX^Q  b^  nc*yri  i^h 
T  a  and  d.  This  takes  the  place  of  ^^::»yD  nL*'i?n  of  E.  The 
second  object  is  rest  To  this  fundamental  conception  contained 
in  the  nil^  of  J  we  have  the  n^T,  rest,  C^D3\  fa^e  breath,  of  E. 
The  third  object  in  view,  religious  observance,  is  peculiar  to  P 
in  his  phrases  pnnC'  T\1^^  ,n2:^♦  r\Z'^  and  C^np  Nlp^D. 

{b).  Those  who  are  to  observe  it  are  in  J  "  thou,"  in  E  ox  and 
ass,  the  son  of  the  maidservant,  and  stranger  ;  in  T  rt,  son,  daugh- 
ter, manservant,  maidservant,  cattle,  and  stranger;  T  b,  ox  and 
ass  are  added  to  those  of  T  «  ;  in  P,  it  is  every  soul,  or  person,  un- 
der penalty  of  a  violent  death. 

{c).  The  reasons  of  the  command  are  still  more  varied  than  the 
specifications.     There  are  none  in  J. 
E. — "  that  thine  ox  and  thine  ass  may  rest  and  that  the  son  of 
thy  maidservant  and  the  stranger   may  take  breath  "  (Ex. 
xxiii.  12). 
T  b. — "in   order  that   thy  manservant  and   thy  maidservant 
may  rest  as  well  as  thou.     And  thou  shalt  remember  that 
thou  wast  a  servant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  Jahveh  thy 
God  brought  thee  out  thence  by  a  mighty  hand,  and  by  a 
stretched-out  arm ;  therefore  Jahveh  thy  God  commanded 
thee  to  keep  the  Sabbath  day  "  (Dt.  v.  14-15). 
T  a. — "  For  in  six  days  Jahveh  made  heaven  and  earth,  the  sea, 
and  all  that  in  them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day ;  where- 
fore Jahveh  blessed  the  Sabbath  day,  and  hallowed  it "  (Ex. 

XX.   II). 

P. — "  For  it  is  a  sign  between  me  and  you  throughout  your 
generations  :  that  ye  may  know  that  I  am  Jahveh  which  sanc- 
tify you it  is  a  sign  between  me  and  the  children  of 

Israel  for  ever :  for  in  six  days  Jahveh  made  heaven  and  earth, 
and  on  the  seventh  day  he  rested  and  was  refreshed  "  (Ex. 
xxxi.  13,  17.) 

It  is  evident  that  the  reason  given  in  T  ^  is  only  a  Deutero- 
nomic  enlargement  of  E  fortified  by  the  reference  to  the  deliver- 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.     ;[()5 

ance  from  Egypt  which  is  the  Deuteronomic  underlying  motive 
of  gratitude  to  keep  all  the  commands.  This  reason  is  omitted 
in  T  a,  and  was  without  doubt  absent  from  the  Tables  as  given  in 
the  Versions  of  J  and  E.  It  is  not  difficult  to  trace  the  origin  of 
the  reason  given  in  T  a.  We  find  it  essentially  in  the  appendix 
to  the  Poem  of  the  Creation:  "And  on  the  seventh  day  God 
finished  his  work  which  he  had  made;  and  he  rested  on  the 
seventh  day  from  all  his  work  which  he  had  made.  And  God 
blessed  the  seventh  day  and  sanctified  it;  because  that  in  it  he 
rested  from  all  his  work  which  God  had  created  and  made  "  (Gen. 
ii.  2-3).     It  is  a  characteristic  of  the  priestly  document. 

It  is  also  characteristic  of  P  that  he  represents  the  Sabbath  as 
a  sign  of  the  covenant,  just  as  he  has  given  the  sign  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  circumcision  (Gen.  xvii.),  and  the  sign  of  the 
covenant  with  Noah,  the  rainbow  (Gen.  ix.  13  seg.),  these  three 
signs  being  peculiar  to  his  document. 

The  three  commands  thus  far  given  have  their  parallels  in  the 
Tables ;  the  seven  now  to  be  considered  have  nothing  to  corre- 
spond with  them  in  the  Tables. 

IV.  Command. 
J. —  The  feast    of   unleavened   bread   thou   shalt  observe  (Ex. 

xxxiv.  i8rt). 
E. —  The  feast  of  imleavened  broad  thou  shalt  observe  (Ex.  xxiii. 

15.7). 
D. — Observe  the  month  Abib  and  keep  Passover  to  Jahveh  thy 

God  ij^l.  xvi.  \a). 
P. — In  the  first  7nonth  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  month,  be- 
tween the  evenings,  z's  passover  to   Jahveh.     And  on  the 
fifteejith  day  of  this  month  is  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
to  Jahveh  (Lev.  xxiii.  5-6). 
In  the  ritual  of  the  holy  days.  Num.  xxviii.  16-17,  (P  b)^  we  have 
a  section  identical  with  Lev.  xxiii.  5-6,  save  that  "  Mazzoth  to  Jah- 
veh "  has  fallen  out  after  "feast,"  probably  by  an  ancient  copy- 
ist's mistake,  and  "between  the  evenings"  is  omitted.     H  prob- 
ably had  a  similar  brief  law,  but  it  was  left  off  when  his  law  was 
appended  to  P  in  Lev.  xxiii.     The  comparison  of  these  parallel 
laws  in  the  four  codes  shows  that  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
was  the  great  feast  of  J  E.     There  is  no  reference  to  the  Passover 
in  E.     In  J  it  is  mentioned  in  his  8th  command.     Passover  has 


j^9G  APPENDIX. 

become  a  proper  name  in  D  and  has  risen  above  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread.     So  also  in  P,  the  Passover  comes   first  in  im- 
portance.    The  simple  command  for  the  observance  of  the  feast 
of  unleavened  bread  is  enlarged  in  all  the  laws.     In  D  and  P  it  is 
appended  to  the  Passover.   We  shall  reserve  the  Passover  for  dis- 
cussion under  the  8th  Command  of  J  and  limit  ourselves  here  to 
the  feast  of  unleavened  bread. 
J. — "Seven  days  thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread  according  as 
I  have  commanded  thee,  at  the  season  of  the  month  Abib. 
For  in  the  month  Abib  thou  didst  go  out  from  Egypt  " 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  1 8). 
E. — "  Seven  days  thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread  according  as 
I  have  commanded  thee,  at  the  season  of  the  month 
Abib.     For  in  it  thou  didst  go  forth  from  Egypt  "  (Ex. 
xxiii.  15). 
D. — "Seven  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavened  bread  therewith, 
even  the  bread  of  affliction  ;  for  thou  camest  forth  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt  in  haste :  that  thou  mayest  remem- 
ber the  day  when  thou  camest  forth  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt  all  the  days  of  thy  life.     And  there  shall  be  no 
leaven   seen  with   thee   in  all  thy  borders  seven  days. 
....  Six  days  thou  shalt  eat  unleavened  bread  :  and  on 
the  seventh  day  shall  be  a  Azereth  to  Jahveh  thy  God  ; 
thou  shalt  do  no  work  "  (Dt.  xvi.  3-4,  8). 
P  (^). — "Seven  days  ye  shall  eat  unleavened  bread.     In  the 
first  day  ye  shall  have  an  holy  convocation  :  ye  shall  do  no 
servile  work.     But  ye  shall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire 
to  Jahveh  seven  days:  on  the  seventh  day  is  an  holy 
convocation  ;  ye  shall  do  no  servile  work  "  (Lev.  xxiii. 
6-8). 
{b).—  "  Seven  days  shall  unleavened  bread  be  eaten.     In  the 
first  day  shall  be  an  holy  convocation  ;  ye  shall  do  no 
servile  work  ;  but  ye  shall  ofTer  an  offering  made  by  fire, 
etc."  (Num.  xxviii.  17-25). 
The  month  Abib  is  the  time  of  J  E  D,  but  P  in  accordance 
with  his  usage  mentions  the  number  of  the  month.     The  simple 
rule  of  J  E  as  regards  eating  unleavened  bread,  in  D  is  paraphrased 
and  intensified,  and  the  last  day  is  made  into  a  special  day  called 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.     ^9^7 

In  P  the  feast  opens  and  concludes  with  great  Sabbaths  of  holy 
convocation,  and  an  elaborate  scheme  of  sacrifices  was  prepared. 

Attached  to  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  in  J  is  the  law  of 
firstlings. 

J. — "All  firstlings  of  the  womb  are  mine,  and  all  male  cattle, 
the  firstlings  of  the  ox  and  sheep.  And  the  firstlings  of 
the  ass  thou  shalt  redeem  with  a  sheep.  And  if  thou 
canst  not  redeem  it  thou  shalt  break  its  neck.  All  the 
firstborn  of  thy  sons  thou  shalt  redeem  "  (Ex.  xxxiv. 
19-20). 

E. — "  The  firstborn  of  thy  sons  thou  shalt  give  me.  So  shalt 
thou  do  to  thy  oxen,  to  thy  sheep ;  seven  days  shall  it  be 
with  its  mother,  on  the  eighth  day  thou  shalt  give  it  to 
me  "  (Ex.  xxii.  28-29). 

D. — '*  All  the  firstling  males  that  are  born  of  thy  herd  and  of 
thy  flock  thou  shalt  sanctify  unto  Jahveh  thy  God  :  thou 
shalt  do  no  work  with  the  firstling  of  thine  ox,  nor  shear 
the  firstling  of  thy  flock.  Thou  shalt  eat  it  before  Jah- 
vah  thy  God  year  by  year  in  the  place  which  Jahveh 
shall  choose,  thou  and  thy  household.  And  if  it  have 
any  blemish  (as  if  it  be),  lame  or  blind,  any  ill  blemish 
whatsoever,  thou  shalt  not  sacrifice  it  unto  Jahveh  thy 
God.  Thou  shalt  eat  it  within  thy  gates  :  the  unclean 
and  the  clean  {shall  eat  it)  alike,  as  the  gazelle,  and  as 
the  hart  "  (Dt.  xv.  19-22). 

H. — "  Only  the  firstling  among  beasts,  which  is  made  a  firstling 
to  Jahveh,  no  man  shall  sanctify  it ;  whether  it  be  ox  or 
sheep.  It  is  Jahveh's.  And  if  it  be  an  unclean  beast, 
then  he  shall  ransom  it  according  to  thine  estimation, 
and  shall  add  unto  it  the  fifth  part  thereof:  or  if  it  be 
not  redeemed,  then  it  shall  be  sold  according  to  thine 
estimation  "  (Lev.  xxvii.  26-27). 

P.—"  Every  thing  that  openeth  the  womb,  of  all  flesh  which 
they  off"er  unto  Jahveh,  both  of  man  and  beast,  shall  be 
thine  :  nevertheless  the  firstborn  of  man  shalt  thou  surely 
redeem,  and  the  firstling  of  unclean  beasts  shalt  thou  re- 
deem. And  those  that  are  to  be  redeemed  of  them  from 
a  month  old  shalt  thou  redeem,  according  to  thine  esti- 
mation, for  the  money  of  five  shekels,  after  the  shekel 
of    the    sanctuary   (the   same  is   twenty  gerahs).     But 


5^98  APPENDIX. 

the  firstling  of  an  ox,  or  the  firstling  of  a  sheep,  or  the 
firstling  of  a  goat,  thou  shalt  not  redeem  :  they  are  holy  : 
thou  shalt  sprinkle  their  blood  upon  the  altar,  and  shalt 
burn  their  fat  for  an  offering  made  by  fire  for  a  sweet  sa- 
vour unto  Jahveh.    And   the  flesh  of  them  shall  be 
thine"  (<?.  ^.  the  priests),  (Num.  xviii.  15-18). 
The  law  of  the  firstborn  is  associated  with  the  feast  of  unleav- 
ened bread  in  the  narrative  of  J,  and  there  is  a  remarkable  verbal 
correspondence  between  the  law  of  J  and  the  narrative  of  J.     In 
the  narrative  we  find  the  following : 

"  Thou  shalt  cause  to  pass  over  to  Jahveh  all  that  openeth  the 
womb,  and  every  firstling  which  thou  hast  that  cometh  of  a 
beast :  the  males  shall  be  Jahveh's.    And  every  firstling  of  an 
ass  thou  shalt  redeem  with  a  sheep ;  and  if  thou  canst  not  re- 
deem it  thou  shalt  break  its  neck :  and  all  the  firstborn  of 
man  among  thy  sons  shalt  thou  redeem  "  (Ex.  xiii.  12-13). 
The  law  of  E  is  not  in  the  decalogue  of  worship,  but  in  a  pen- 
tade  (Ex.  xxii.  28).     In  D  nothing  is  said  of  redemption.     Only 
the  animals  without  blemish  could  go  to  the  sacrifice.    The  others 
could  be  eaten  at  home.     The  firstborn  suitable  for  sacrifice  were 
to  be  eaten  in  the  communion  meal  of  the  peace-offering  in  the 
central  sanctuary  of  D.    In  H  the  beasts  were  to  be  ransomed  ac- 
cording to  an  estimation  and  a  fifth  part  added  to  their  value. 
In  P  the  firstborn  of  men  and  unclean  beasts  were  to  be  redeemed. 
The  ")V«^  is  common  to  the  five  codes ;   but  there  is  a  differ- 
ence between   the  codes  as    to  the  terms  for  the  animals  of 
the    flock.      J    and    H   agree   in   giving  nti',   a  term    compre- 
hending sheep  and  goat.     E  and  D  use  |X^',  sheep.     P  uses  the 
two  words  2C'3,  sheep,  and  Ty,  goat.     The  estimation  of  the  re- 
demption price  was  five  shekels  of  the  sanctuary.    The  firstlings 
unredeemed  went  to  the  priests  as  well  as  the  redemption  money 
of  the  redeemed.     The  stages  of  legal  development  are  clearly 
marked  in  these  successive  codes. 

Attached  to  the  law  of  the  feast  of  the  unleavened  bread  in  J 
is  the  command. 
J. — '«  And  thou  shalt  not  appear  in  my  presence  empty  "  (Ex. 

xxxiv.  20). 
E. — "  And  they  shall  not  appear  in  my  presence  empty  "  (Ex. 
xxiii.  15). 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.  I99 

D. — "  And  they  shall  not  appear  before  Jahveh  empty  "  (Dt. 
xvi.  16). 

In  J  E  this  is  attached  to  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread.  In 
D  it  is  extended  to  the  three  great  feasts,  and  the  command  is 
enlarged,  "every  man  according  to  the  gift  of  his  hand,  accord- 
ing to  the  blessing  of  Jahveh  thy  God  which  he  hath  given  thee  " 
(Dt.  xvi.  17).  In  H  and  P  these  become  prescribed  offerings  of 
an  elaborate  ritual  (Lev.  xxiii.;  Num.  xxviii.,  xxix.). 

F.  Command. 
J. — '*  And  the  feast  of  weeks  tJioii  shalt  keep  at  the  first  fruits  of 

the  wheat  harvest"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  120). 
E. — "  Afid  the  feast  of  harvest  (thou  shalt  observe)  the  first 
fruits  of  thy  work  which  thou  shalt  sow  in  the  field  " 
(Ex.  xxiii.  16). 
D. — "  Seven  weeks  shalt  thou  number  unto  thee  :  from  the  time 
thou  beginnest  to  put  the  sickle  to  the  standing  grain 
shalt  thou  begin  to  number  seven  weeks.  And  thou 
shalt  keep  the  feast  of  weeks  imto  Jahveh  thy  God  with 
a  tribute  of  a  freewill  offering  of  thine  hand,  which 
thou  shalt  give,  according  as  Jahveh  thy  God  blesseth 
thee:  and  thou  shalt  rejoice  before  Jahveh  thy  God, 
thou,  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  manser- 
vant, and  thy  maidservant,  and  the  Levite  that  is  within 
thy  gates,  and  the  stranger,  and  the  fatherless,  and  the 
widow,  that  are  in  the  midst  of  thee,  in  the  place  which 
Jahveh  thy  God  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell 
there.  And  thou  shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a 
bondman  in  Egypt ;  and  thou  shalt  observe  and  do  these 
statutes"  (Dt.  xvi.  9-12). 
H. — "And  ye  shall  count  unto  you  from  the  morrow  after  the 
sabbath,  from  the  day  that  ye  brought  the  sheaf  of  the 
wave  offering;  seven  sabbaths  shall  there  be  complete: 
even  unto  the  morrow  after  the  seventh  sabbath  shall 
ye  number  fifty  days  ;  and  ye  shall  offer  a  7iew  minchah 
unto  Jahveh.  Ye  shall  bring  out  of  your  habitations 
two  wave  loaves  of  two  tenth  parts  {of  aft  ephah) : 
they  shall  be  of  fine  fiour,  they  shall  be  baken  with 
leaven,  for  first  fruits  unto  Jahveh.  And  ye  shall  pre- 
sent with  the  bread  seven  lambs  without  blemish  of  the 


200 


APFENDIX. 


first  year,  and  one  young  bullock,  and  two  rams :  they 
shall  be  a  burnt  offering  unto  Jahveh,  with  their  minchah 
and  their  drink  offerings,  even  an  offering  made  by  fire, 
of  a  sweet  savour,  unto  Jahveh.     And  ye  shall  offer  one 
he-goat  for  a  sin-offering,  and  two  he-lambs  of  the  first 
year  for  a  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings.     And  the   priest 
shall  wave  them  with  the  bread  of  the  first-fruits  for  a 
wave  offering  before  Jahveh,  with  the  two  lambs  :  they 
shall  be  holy  to  Jahveh  for  the  priest.     And  ye  shall 
make  proclamation  on  the  self-same  day ;  there  shall  be 
an  holy  convocation  unto  you  :  ye  shall  do  no  servile 
work :    it    is  a  statute   forever  in   all  your  dwellings 
throughout  your  generations  "  (Lev.  xxiii.  15-21). 
P. — "Also  in  the  day  of  the  first-fruits,  when  ye  offer  a  7iew 
7)1171  chah  tmto   jahveh  zti  your  weeks,  ye  shall  have  an 
holy  convocation  ;  ye  shall  do  no  servile  work,  but  ye 
shall  offer  a  burnt  offering  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  Jah- 
veh ;  two  young  bullocks,  one  ram,  seven  he-lambs  of 
the  first  year;  and  their  minchah,  fine  flour  mingled 
with  oil,  three  tenth  parts  for  each  bullock,  two  tenth 
parts  for  the  one  ram,  a  several  tenth  part  for  every 
lamb  of  the  seven  lambs  ;  one  he-goat,  to  make  atone- 
ment for  you.     Beside  the  continual  burnt  offering,  and 
the  minchah  thereof,  ye  shall  offer  them  (they  shall  be 
unto  you  without  blemish),  and  their  drink  offerings" 
(Num.  xxviii.  26-31). 
The  name  of  this  feast  in  J  and  D  is  feast  of  weeks,  in  E  the 
feast  of  harvest,  in  P  the  day  of  the  first-fruits.     The  time  of  ob- 
servance of  J  is  at  the   first-fruits  of  the  wheat  harvest.     E  is 
more  general — the  first-fruits  of  thy  sowing.     D  counts  seven 
weeks  from  the  time  of  the  first  putting  the  sickle  to  the  stand- 
ing grain.    H  counts  seven  Sabbaths  from  the  day  of  the  'oTner 
offering,  on  the  morrow^  after  the  Sabbath  of  the  feast  of  un- 
leavened bread.     According  to  D  it  was  a  joyful  family  feast,  in 
which  freewill  offerings  were  offered  at  the  central  sanctuary. 
According  to  H,  it  was  the  time  for  the  offering  of  the  two  fresh 
loaves  of  the  new  harvest,  prior  to  which  no  portion  of  the  har- 
vest could  be  eaten  by  the  people.     It  was  also  a  great  Sabbath 
with  a  ritual  sin  offering  and  peace  offerings,  burnt  offerings  and 
minchoth.     P  gives  explicit  directions  as  to  these  offerings. 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS. 


VI.    Command. 


201 


J. — "  Aftd  the  feast  of  the  ingathering  (thou  shalt  observe)  at 
the  circuit  of  the  year"  (Ex.  xxxiv.  12b). 

E. — "  And  the  feast  of  the  ingathering  (thou  shalt  observe)  in 
the  gfoing  forth  of  the  year  when  thou  gatherest  in  thy 
work  from  the  field  "  (Ex.  xxiii.  idb). 

D. — "  Thou  shalt  keep  the  feast  of  booths  seven  days,  after  that 
thou  hast  gathered  in  from  thy  threshing-floor  and 
from  thy  winepress :  and  thou  shalt  rejoice  in  thy  feast, 
thou,  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daughter,  and  thy  manser- 
vant, and  thy  maidservant,  and  the  Levite,  and  the 
stranger,  and  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow,  that  are 
within  thy  gates.  Seven  days  shalt  thou  keep  a  feast 
unto  Jahveh  thy  God  in  the  place  which  Jahveh  shall 
choose :  because  Jahveh  thy  God  shall  bless  thee  in  all 
thine  increase,  and  in  all  the  work  of  thine  hands,  and 
thou  shalt  be  altogether  jo>ful  "  (Dt.  xvi.  13-15). 

H. — "  And  ye  shall  take  you  on  the  first  day  the  fruit  of  goodly 
trees,  branches  of  palm  trees,  and  boughs  of  thick  trees, 
and  willows  of  the  brook  ;  and  ye  shall  rejoice  before 
Jahveh  your  God  seven  days.  And  ye  shall  keep  it  a 
feast  unto  Jahveh  seven  days  in  the  year :  it  is  a  statute 
forever  in  your  generations:  ye  shall  keep  it  in  the 
seventh  month.  Ye  shall  dwell  in  booths  seven  days; 
all  that  are  homeborn  in  Israel  shall  dwell  in  booths: 
that  your  generations  may  know  that  I  made  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  to  dwell  in  booths,  when  I  brought  them 
out  of  the  land  of  Egypt :  I  am  Jahveh  your  God  "  (Lev. 
xxiii.  40-44).  . 

P  {a). — "  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  saying,  On  the  ff 
tee7ith  day  of  this  sevejith  month  is  the  feast  of  booths 
for  seven  days  unto  Jahveh.  On  the  first  day  shall  be  an 
holy  convocation  :  ye  shall  do  no  servile  work.  Seven 
days  ye  shall  ofTer  an  offering  made  by  fire  unto  Jah- 
veh :  on  the  eighth  day  shall  be  an  holy  convocation 
unto  you,  and  ye  shall  offer  an  offering  made  by  fire 
unto  Jahveh :  it  is  a  closing  festival ;  ye  shall  do  no 
servile  work  "  (Lev.  xxiii.  34-36). 
{b). — "  And  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the  seventh  month  ye  shall 


202  APPENDIX. 

have  an  holy  convocation  ;  ye  shall  do  no  servile  work, 
and  ye  shall  keep  a  feast  unto  Jahveh  seven  days  :  and 
ye  shall  offer  a  burnt  offering,  an  offering  made  by  fire, 
of  a  sweet  savour  unto  Jahveh;  thirteen  young  bul- 
locks, two  rams,  fourteen  he-lambs  of  the  first  year; 
they  shall  be  without  blemish :  and  their  minchah, 
fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  three  tenth  parts  for  every 
bullock  of  the  thirteen  bullocks,  two  tenth  parts  for 
each  ram  of  the  two  rams,  and  a  several  tenth  part  for 
every  lamb  of  the  fourteen  lambs :  and  one  he-goat  for 
a  sin  offering;  beside  the  continual  burnt  offering,  the 
minchah  thereof,  and  the  drink  offering  thereof.  And 
on  the  second  day  (jye  shall  offer)  twelve  young  bul- 
locks, two  rams,  fourteen  he-lambs  of  the  first  year 
without  blemish:  and  their  minchah  and  their  drink 
offerings  for  the  bullocks,  for  the  rams,  and  for  the 
lambs,  according  to  their  number,  after  the  ordinance: 
and  one  he-goat  for  a  sin  offering;  beside  the  continual 
burnt  offering,  and  the  minchah  thereof,  and  their 
drink  offerings  "  ....  (Each  of  the  intervening  days 
has  its  ritual). 

"On  the  eighth  day  ye  shall  have  a  closing  festival : 

ye  shall  do  no  servile  work  :  but  ye  shall  offer  a  burnt 

offering,  an  offering  made  by  fire,  of  a  sweet  savour  unto 

the  Lord  :  one  bullock,  one  ram,  seven  he-lambs  of  the 

first  year  without  blemish  :  their  minchah  and  their 

drink  offerings  for  the  bullock,  for  the  ram,  and  for 

the  lambs,  shall  be  according  to  their  number,  after  the 

ordinance :  and  one  he-goat  for  a  sin  offering ;  beside 

the  continual  burnt  offering,  and  the  minchah  thereof, 

and  the   drink  offering  thereof"    (Num.  xxix.    12-19, 

35-38). 

The  third  annual  feast  is  called  "the  feast  of  the  ingathering" 

P]^Dt^    in   J   E  =  feast  of  booths  HDD  in  D  and  P,  observed  by 

dwelling  in  booths  in  H.    The  time  in  J  is   "at  the  circuit   of 

the  year,"  r\'l'Z'T\  nSlpD  =  in  the  going  forth  of  the  year  njm  nXV3 

E.     In  E  the  additional  statement  is  made,  "when  thou  gather- 

est  in  thy  work  from  the  field, "="  after  thou  hast  gathered  in 

from  thy  threshing  floor  and  from  thy  winepress,"  D.    H  put.s  the 

feast  in  the  seventh  month,  and  P  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  the 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.  203 

seventh  month.  From  J  E  we  would  suppose  the  feast  was  for 
a  single  day.  But  D  H  P  mention  seven  days  of  observance. 
P  mentions  an  nivy  on  the  eighth  day,  the  seventh  great  Sab- 
bath of  the  year.  In  D  it  is  a  joyful  harvest  feast  at  the  central 
sanctuary.  In  H  it  is  a  celebration  of  their  dwelling  in  booths 
when  they  came  forth  from  Egypt.  In  P  it  is  a  feast  in  which 
the  ritual  prescribes  a  greater  amount  of  whole  burnt  offerings 
expressing  worship  than  at  any  other  feast.  It  is  the  culmina- 
tion of  the  worship  of  the  year. 

Appended  to  this  command  in  J  is  the  command,  "  Three 
times  in  the  year  shaJl  all  thy  males  appear  before  the  Lord  Jah- 
veh,  the  God  of  Israel.  For  I  will  dispossess  nations  from  thy 
presence,  and  I  will  make  thy  boundary  broad  in  order  that  no 
one  may  desire  thy  land  when  thou  goest  up  to  appear  before 
Jahveh  thy  God  three  times  in  the  year  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  23,  24). 

In  the  other  codes  we  find  similar  prescriptions  : 

E  a. — "Three  times  shalt  thou  keep  feast  to  me  in  the  year" 
(Ex.  xxiii.  14). 

E  b. — "  Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before 
the  Lord  Jahveh  "  (Ex.  xxiii.  17). 

D. — "  Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  before 
Jahveh  thy  God  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose  " 
(Dt.  xvi.  16). 

Instead  of  the  three  times  of  J  E  D,  we  have  the  three  harvest 
feasts  of  H,  the  ofTering  of  the  first  ripe  sheaf,  the  offering  of  the 
first  loaves  of  the  harvest,  and  the  dwelling  in  booths  after  all 
the  harvests  had  been  gathered  in  (Lev.  xxiii.).  P  gives  the  rit- 
ual of  the  seven  great  Sabbaths  of  the  year  in  Num.  xxviii.-xxix. 

D  appends  his  law  of  the  one  central  sanctuary  as  is  usual  with 
him.  E  gives  the  command  as  an  introduction  to  the  three 
feasts  as  well  as  a  conclusion.  But  these  differ  in  language  to 
such  an  extent  that  one  of  them  must  have  been  taken  from  an- 
other source.  It  seems  probable  that  E  b,  as  less  original,  is  a 
later  addition.  E  a  uses  D'pn  for  DVOyD  in  E  ^.  J  D  ;  and  Jjn 
for  "  appear  before  "  of  E  <^.  J  D.  E  ^  uses  i:x  for  r.N  of  J  and  D. 
The  encouragement  of  J  is  peculiar  to  him. 

VII.  Co7nmand. 

J.—"  Thou  shalt  not  offer  the  blood  of  my  zcbach  with  Icavatcd 
bread''  (Ex.  xxxiv.  25  a). 


204  APPENDIX. 

E. — "  Than  s-hdlt  7tot  offer  the  blood  of  my  zobach  wiih  leavened 
bread''  (Ex.  xxiii.  i8  ^). 

p  a. — "  He  shall  bring  with  the  zebach  of  the  i hank-off eritig  per- 
forated cakes,  tmleavened,  mingled  with  oil  and  wafers 
unleavened,  anointed  with  oil,  and  cakes  mingled  with 
oil,  of  fine  flour,  soaked.  With  perforated  cakes  of 
leavened  bread  he  may  offer  his  oblation  with  the  ze- 
bach of  his  peace-offering  for  thank-offering  "  (Lev. 
vii.  12,  13). 

p  ^. — "  ]\Jo  7Jii7ichah  which  ye  britig  to  Jahveh  shall  be  offered 
leavened"  (Lev.  ii.  11). 

J  E  and  P  b  use  )>Dn,  leavened.  P  a  uses  niVO,  unleavened,  as 
well  as  ]'Dn.  J  uses  for  offer  'Onv  =  n3T  E  =  n^pn  V  a,b.  J  E 
use  nnr  =  D''D^L*'n  n3T  P^.  P  allows  the  use  of  leavened  bread  in 
the  case  specified  to  be  eaten  at  the  common  meal  of  the  peace- 
offering,  and  H  mentions  the  offering  of  the  two  leavened  loaves 
at  the  harvest  feast  (Lev.  xxiii.  17). 

VIII.  Conwiafid. 

J. "  A7td  the  zebach  of  the  feast  of  the  Passover  shall  not  be  left 

unto  the  morning  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  25  <^). 

E. "  And  the  fat  of  my  feast  shall  not  remaifi  all  flight  until  the 

mornitig"  (Ex.  xxiii.  18  b). 

D. '« And  thou  shalt  sacrifice  the  passover  unto  Jahveh  thy 

God,  of  the  flock  and  the  herd,  in  the  place  which 
Jahveh  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell 
there."  .... 
''Neither  shall  any  of  the  flesh,  which  thou  sacrificest  the 
first  day  at  even,  remain  all  night  until  the  morrang. 
Thou  mayest  not  sacrifice  the  passover  within  any  of 
thy  gates,  which  Jahveh  thy  God  giveth  thee  :  but  at 
the  place  which  Jahveh  thy  God  shall  choose  to  cause 
his  name  to  dwell  in,  there  thou  shalt  sacrifice  the 
passover  at  even,  at  the  going  down  of  the  sun,  at  the 
season  that  thou  earnest  forth  out  of  Egypt.  And 
thou  shalt  roast  and  eat  it  m  the  place  which  Jah- 
veh thy  God  shall  choose  :  and  thou  shalt  turn  in  the 
morning,  and  go  unto  thy  tents"  (Deut.  xvi.  2, 
4  ^—7). 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.  205 

P  (a). — "  77/ ^j  s//:rl/  leave  7wn:  of  it  until  the  mo7-7ii)ig,  nor  break 
a  bone  thereof:  according  to  all  the  statute  of  the 
passover,  they  shall  keep  it"  (Num.  ix.  12). 

V {b). — "And  in  the  first  month,  on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
month,  is  Jahveh's  passover"  (Num.  xxviii.  16). 

The  fuller  law  of  the  passover  is  given  in  connection  with  the 
mingled  history  of  J  and  P  in  Ex.  xii. 

P. — "Speak  ye  unto  all  the  congregation  of  Israel,  saying.  In 
the  tenth  {day)  of  this  month  they  shall  take  to  them 
every  man  a  lamb,  according  to  their  fathers'  houses, 
a  lamb  for  an  household  :  and  if  the  household  be  too 
little  for  a  lamb,  then  shall  he  and  his  neighbor  next 
unto  his  house  take  one  according  to  the  number  of 
the  souls;  according  to  every  man's  eating,  ye  shall 
make  your  count  for  the  lamb.  Your  lamb  shall  be 
without  blemish,  a  male  of  the  first  year  :  ye  shall  take 
it  from  the  sheep,  or  from  the  goats  :  and  ye  shall  keep 
it  up  until  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  same  month:  and 
the  whole  assembly  of  the  congregation  of  Israel  shall 
kill  it  at  even.  And  they  shall  take  of  the  blood,  and 
put  it  on  the  two  side  posts  and  on  the  lintel,  upon 
the  houses  wherein  they  shall  eat  it.  And  they  shall 
eat  the  flesh  in  that  night,  roast  with  fire,  and  unleav- 
ened bread  ;  with  bitter  herbs  they  shall  eat  it.  Eat 
not  of  it  rflw,  nor  sodden  at  all  with  water,  but  roast  with 
fire  ;  its  head  with  its  legs  and  with  the  inwards  there- 
of. And  ye  shall  let  nothijig  of  it  remain  until  the  morn- 
z'ng ;  but  that  which  remaineth  of  it  until  the  morn- 
ing, ye  shall  burn  with  fire.  And  thus  shall  ye  eat  it ; 
with  your  loins  girded,  your  shoes  on  your  feet,  and 
your  staff  in  your  hand  :  and  ye  shall  eat  it  m  haste: 
it  is  Jahveh's  passover."  .... 

"  And  Jah  veh  said  unto  Moses  and  Aaron,  This  is  the  ordinance 
of  the  passover:  there  shall  no  alien  ert  thereof:  but 
every  man's  servant  that  is  bought  for  money,  when 
thou  hast  circumcised  him,  then  shall  he  eat  thereof.  A 
sojourner  and  an  hired  servant  shall  not  eat  thereof. 
In  one  house  shall  it  be  eaten  ;  thou  shalt  not  carry 
forth  aught  of  the  flesh  abroad  out  of  the  house ;  nei- 


206  APPENDIX. 

ther  shall  ye  break  a  bone  thereof "  (Ex.  xii.  3-1 1 ; 

43-46). 

J. — "Then  Moses  called  for  all  the  elders  of  Israel,  and  said 

unto  them,  Draw  out,  and  take  you  lambs  according 

to  your  families,  and  kill  the  passover.     And  ye  shall 

take  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the  blood  that  is 

in  the  basin,  and  strike  the  lintel  and  the  two  side 

posts  with  the  blood  that  is  in  the  basin ;  and  none  of 

you  shall  go  out  of  the  door  of  his  house  until  the 

morning.     For  Jahveh  will  pass  through  to  smite  the 

Egyptians ;  and  when  he  seeth  the  blood  upon  the 

lintel,  and  on  the  two  side  posts,  Jahveh  will  pass  over 

the  door,  and  will  not  suffer  the  destroyer  to  come  in 

unto  your  houses  to  smite  you.     And  ye  shall  observe 

this  thing  for  an  ordinance  to  thee  and  to  thy  sons  for 

ever.     And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  ye  be  come  to 

the  land  which  Jahveh  will  give  you,  according  as  he 

hath  promised,  that  ye  shall  keep  this  service.     And 

it  shall  come  to  pass,  when  your  children  shall  say 

unto  you.  What  mean  ye  by  this  service  ?  that  ye  shall 

say,  It  is  the  sacrifice  of  Jahveh's  passover,  who  passed 

over  the  houses  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt, 

when    he   smote   the   Egyptians,   and   delivered   our 

houses"  (Ex.  xii.  21-27). 

The  passover  feast  of  the  eighth  command  of  J,  which  is  here 

incidentally  referred  to  under  the  offering  peculiar  to  the  feast, 

is  more  fully  mentioned  in  the  narrative  of  J.       The    passover 

sacrifice  is  indeed  a  special  kind  of  the  zebach,  or  peace-offering, 

riDDn  :in  PIDT  =  noa  n^t  of  Ex.  xii.  27.     E  gives  the  command  a 

more  general  reference  to  all  the   feasts.      D   uses  the   phrase 

"sacrifice   the   passover,"  nD3n  nnt  =  nDDiinn*^  of  J.      In    the 

narrative  of  J  the  victim  is  |NV,  a  lamb ;  in  P,  a  n^,  embracing 

tiOD,  lamb,  and  TV,  kid.     There  is  no  specification  in  the  codes 

of  E  and  J.     In  J  the  zebach  shall  not  be  left  until  the  morning, 

ipih  r^^  i6  =  ip3  ny  \'h'  i6  of  e  =  -ip3^-)t:on  p  p^^  i6  o(  D  = 

-Ip3  ny  "n^nin  i6  of  P  (narrative)  =  npl  ny  ')"1\S:^'^  i6  of  P  a. 
D  emphasizes  the  celebration  of  the  feast  at  the  central  sanc- 
tuary. P  a  gives  the  additional  rule,  "  nor  break  a  bone  thereof," 
both  in  his  code  and  in  his  narrative.  If  we  had  space  we  could 
point  to  a  large  number  of  features  which  distinguish  the  docu- 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.  207 

ments  here  and  elsewhere,  as  illustrated  by  these  extensive   pas- 
sages.    Any  one  of  our  readers  may  do  it  for  himself. 

IX.    Co7twiand. 
J._"  The  first  of  the  first-fruits  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt  bring  to 

the  house  of  Jahvch  thy  God''  (Ex.  xxxiv.  26  a). 
E. — "  The  first  of  the  first  fruits  of  thy  ground  thou  shalt  bring  to 

the  house  of  Jahveh  thy  God"  (Ex.  xxiii.  19). 
D. — "  That  thou  shalt  take  of  the  first  of  all  the  fruit  of  the  ground, 
which  thou  shalt  bring  in  from  thy  land  that  Jahveh 
thy  God  giveth  thee ;  and  thou  shalt  put  it  in  a 
basket,  and  shalt  go  unto  the  place  which  Jahveh 
thy  God  shall  choose  to  cause  his  name  to  dwell 
there.  And  thou  shalt  come  unto  the  priest  that  shall 
be  in  those  days,  and  say  unto  him,  I  profess  this  day 
unto  Jahveh  thy  God,  that  I  am  come  unto  the  land 
I  which   Jahveh  sware  unto  our  fathers  for  to  give  us. 

I  And  the  priest  shall  take  the  basket  out  of  thine  hand, 

!  and  set  it  down   before  the  altar  of  Jahveh   thy  God. 

I  And  thou  shalt  answer  and  say  before  Jahveh  thy  God, 

I  A  Syrian  ready  to   perish  was  my  father,  and  he  went 

down  into  Egypt  and  sojourned  there,  few  in  number; 
and  he  became  there  a  nation,  great,  mighty,  and  popu- 
lous :  and  the  Egyptians  evil  entreated  us,  and  afflicted 
us,  and  laid  upon  us  hard  bondage  :  and  we  cried  unto 
Jahveh  the  God  of  our  fathers,  and  Jahveh  heard  our 
voice  and  saw  our  affliction,  and  our  toil,  and  our  op- 
pression :  and  Jahveh  brought  us  forth  out  of  Egypt 
with  a  mighty  hand,  and  with  an  outstretched  arm, 
and  with  great  terribleness,  and  with  signs,  and  with 
wonders :  and  he  hath  brought  us  into  this  place,  and 
hath  given  us  this  land,  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
honey.  And  now,  behold,  I  have  brought  the  first  of 
the  fruit  of  the  ground,  which  thou,  Jahveh,  hast  given 
me.  And  thou  shalt  set  it  down  before  Jahveh  thy  God, 
and  worship  before  Jahveh  thy  God  :  and  thou  shalt  re- 
joice in  all  the  good  which  Jahveh  thy  God  hath  given 
unto  thee,  and  unto  thine  house,  thou,  and  the  Levite, 
and  the  stranger  that  is  in  the  midst  of  thee  "  (Deut. 
xxvi.  2-1 1). 


2Q3  APPENDIX. 

H. — "Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them, 
When  ye  be  come  into  the  land  which  I  give  unto  you, 
and  shall  reap  the  harvest  thereof,  then  ye  shall  bring 
the  sheaf  of  the  first-fruits  of  your  harvest  unto  the 
priest:  and  he  shall  wave  the  sheaf  before  Jahveh 
to  be  accepted  for  you  :  on  the  morrow  after  the  sab- 
bath the  priest  shall  wave  it.  And  in  the  day  when  ye 
wave  the  sheaf,  ye  shall  offer  a  he-lamb  without  blemish 
of  the  first  year  for  a  burnt  offering  unto  Jahveh.  And 
the  minchah  thereof  shall  be  two  tenth  parts  (of  an 
ephah)  of  fine  flour  mingled  with  oil,  an  offering  made 
by  fire  unto  Jahveh  for  a  svv^eet  savour:  and  the  drink 
offering  thereof  shall  be  of  wine,  the  fourth  part  of  an 
hin.  And  ye  shall  eat  neither  bread,  nor  parched  corn, 
nor  fresh  ears,  until  this  self-same  day,  until  ye  have 
brought  the  oblation  of  your  God.  It  is  a  statute  for 
ever  throughout  your  generations  in  all  your  dwell- 
ings "  (Lev.  xxiii.  10-14). 

P. — "  All  the  best  of  the  oil,  and  all  the  best  of  the  vintage, 
and  of  the  corn,  the  first-fruits  of  them  which  they 
give  unto  Jahveh,  to  thee  have  I  given  them.  The  first 
ripe  fruits  of  all  that  is  in  their  land,  which  they  bring 
unto  Jahveh,  shall  be  thine ;  every  one  that  is  clean  in 
thy  house  shall  eat  thereof  "  (Num.  xviii.  12-13). 
The  phrase  of  J   E  is  "inons*  ni33  n^•L^^S-|  = 

nmxn  ns  !?3  n^cxi  of  d  = 
^T\^^\>  n^t:'i<-i  of  H  = 
Dn^t^x")  |ni  t^n^n  n^n  ^21  inv^  3^n  ^3  of  p. 

The  house  of  Jahveh  seems  to  imply  a  temple.  It  may  have 
been  a  change  by  insertion  from  an  original  command  to  bring 
the  first  fruits  to  Jahveh.  In  D  it  is  brought  to  the  priest  of 
Jahveh.  In  H  it  is  the  offering  of  the  first  ripe  sheaf.  In  P  it 
is  generalized  so  as  to  include  oil  and  wine  and  grain,  and  these 
are  to  be  given  to  the  priests  for  food. 

X.    Cofumand. 
J. — "  Thou  shall  not  seethe  a  >^2V/ (which  is  still)  with  its  mother's 

milk  "  (Ex.  xxxiv.  26b). 
E. — "  Thou  shall  not  seethe  a  /^/V/ (which  is  still)  with  its  mother's 

milk  "  (Ex.  xxiii.  19). 


THE  DECALOGUE  OF  J  AND  ITS  PARALLELS.  209 

D. — "  Thou  sJialt  not  seethe  a  /vV/ (which  is  still)  with  its  mother  s 
milk"  (Dt.  xiv.  21). 

This  command  is  identical  in  these  three  codes.  It  is  not 
clear  in  itself,  and  probably  remained  as  an  enigma  after  the  law 
and  usage  had  changed.  The  older  Protestant  interpreters. 
Luther,  Calvin,  Piscator,  et  al.,  thought  of  a  limitation  of  the  age 
of  the  animal  for  purposes  of  sacrifice.  This  is  most  suited  to  the 
context,  for  we  have  had  three  laws  of  offerings  prior  to  it. 
But  the  Rabbinical  interpretation  that  it  is  a  dietaiy  law  against 
eating  a  kid  in  the  milk  of  its  mother  has  been  followed  by  most 
moderns.  The  Deuteronomic  code  (xiv.  21)  is  thought  to  favor 
the  latter  view  from  the  fact  that  it  is  there  preceded  by  the 
command  not  to  eat  anything  that  dies  of  itself.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  followed  by  the  laws  of  tithes  and  first-fruits,  and 
it  may  rather  go  with  these  laws  there,  as  it  is  associated  with 
the  law  of  first-fruits  here.  We  do  not  hesitate  to  follow  the 
former  interpretation  and  class  this  law  with  the  three  preceding 
ones  as  laws  of  offerings.  XO  is  used  for  cooking  the  portions  of 
the  animal  victim  that  were  eaten  by  the  offerers  in  the  communion 
meal  of  the  n2T  (Ex.  xxix.  31).  This  then  would  forbid  the  sacri- 
fice of  suckling  animals.  It  is  true  that  in  the  larger  book  of  the 
Covenant  (Ex.  xxii.  29)  first  born  of  animals  were  to  be  given  to 
Jahveh  on  the  eighth  day,  notwithstanding  the  law  in  Ex.  xxiii. 
19,  corresponding  exactly  with  ours.  It  is  also  true  that  in  Lev. 
xxii.  27,  we  have  the  more  explicit  statement,  "  From  the  eighth 
day  and  upward  it  shall  be  accepted  for  a  qorba7t  an  offering  by 
fire  unto  Jahveh,"  but  notwithstanding  the  consensus  of  Rabbin- 
ical interpretation  we  are  not  sure  that  this  amounts  to  any  more 
than  that  as  the  male  child  was  circumcised  on  the  eighth  day, 
so  the  animal  on  the  eighth  day  was  taken  from  its  mother 
to  the  divine  presence.  It  may  then  have  been  kept  in  the  flocks 
and  herds  of  the  altar  for  subsequent  use  at  the  proper  age.  In- 
deed the  "and  upward,"  favors  our  view.  But  even  if  the  ordi- 
nary view  is  taken  as  to  the  age  of  animals  suitable  for  offerings, 
we  have  still  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  various  codes  differ  not  in- 
frequently in  their  prescriptions.  The  offerings  are  generally  of 
animals  a  year  old  or  more,  in  the  specifiations  of  age  that  are 
not  infrequently  made. 

We  have  gone  over  this  decalogue  of  worship  given  in  the  nar- 
rative of  J,  and  have  compared  its  ten  laws  with  similar  laws  in 


210  APPENDIX. 

the  other  codes.  We  have  found  that  the  same  fundamental 
commands  underHe  the  several  forms  in  which  they  appear  in 
the  different  codes.  These  fundamental  commands  we  may  re- 
gard as  Mosaic;  but  how  is  it  possible  to  explain  the  variations 
in  the  codes  on  the  traditional  theory  that  all  these  variations 
were  given  by  Moses  to  the  same  people  before  their  entrance 
into  the  Holy  Land,  and  ere  it  was  possible  to  fulfil  any  of  them 
in  action  ?  They  appear  in  the  codes  in  several  stages  of  devel- 
opment representing  different  stages  of  codification,  as  changes 
were  rendered  necessary  in  the  experience  of  God's  people  in  the 
Holy  Land.  If  any  one  can  propose  any  more  reasonable  ex- 
planation, or  one  more  in  accord  with  the  traditional  theory  that 
will  take  the  facts  of  the  case  into  account,  we  shall  gladly  follow 
him. 


! 


I 


VI. 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT  AND  ITS  PARALLELS 
IN  THE  LATER  CODES. 

The  book  written  by  Moses  and  called  the  book  of  the  Cov- 
enant Ex.  xxiv.  4-7,  because  the  great  Covenant  at  Sinai  was 
made  upon  the  basis  of  it  (xxiv.  8),  is  also  called  the  greater 
book  of  the  Covenant  in  order  to  distinguish  it  from  the  little 
book  of  the  Covenant,  Ex.  xxxiv^  27.  This  book  contained  all 
the  words  and  judgments  which  had  just  been  given  to  Moses  in 
the  mount  (xxiv.  3).  The  words  certainly  embrace  Ex.  xx. 
22-26,  and  Ex.  xxiii.  20-33,  the  Introduction  and  Conclusion  of  the 
book.  Some  have  maintained  that  the  ten  words  of  the  tables, 
Ex.  XX.  3-17,  should  likewise  be  included.  The  judgments  em- 
brace xxi. — xxiii.  19  in  accordance  with  the  title  xxi.  i  :  "These 
are  the  judgments  which  thou  shalt  set  before  them." 

These  judgments  are  regarded  by  many  as  a  series  of  pentades 
or  groups  of  five  commands,  and  also  decalogues.  The  first 
effort  to  arrange  them  in  such  groups  was  made  by  Bertheau  in 
his  Sicben  Griippen  Mosaischcr  Gesetze.,  Goettingen,  1840.  He 
makes  seven  decalogues:  xx.  3-7;  xxi.  2-1 1,  12-27;  xxi.  28 — 
xxii.  16,  17-30;  xxiii.  1-8;  xxiii.  14-19.  He  regards  xx.  22-26  as 
four  commands  introductory  to  the  judgments  ;  Ex.  xxiii.  9-13 
as  an  interpolation,  and  Ex.  xxiii.  26-43  ^s  a  decalogue  of 
promises.  Great  credit  is  due  to  Bertheau  for  breaking  the  way 
into  this  previously  unexplored  wilderness  of  commands.  It  is 
not  surprising  that  he  sometimes  missed  the  proper  arrange- 
ment. Ewald  in  his  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  II.  p.  235,  1865,  im- 
proves upon  Bertheau 's  scheme  and  finds:  xxi.  2-1 1,  two  pentades, 
xxi.  12-16,  a  pentade  followed  by  v.  17  a  fragment  of  another 
pcntade  relating  to  crimes   other   than  murders  with  a  death 

(211) 


212  APPENDIX 

penalty;  xxi.  18-32,  two  pentades  ;  xxi.  33— xxii.  5,  a  decalogue; 
xxii.  6-16,  two  pentades,  xxii.  17-30,  two  pentades,  xxiii.  1-9,  two 
pentades;  xxiii.  10-19,  two  pentades.  Dillmann  in  his  edition  of 
Knobel's  Com.  on  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  1880,  improves  upon 
Ewald  by  a  more  careful  analysis.  He  thinks  that  the  Redactor 
has  only  given  a  selection  of  commands  of  the  original  series  in 
Ex.  XX.  24-26  and  xxii.  17-30;  that  Ex.  xxiii.  4-5  is  a  later  in- 
terpolation, and  that  xxiii.  10-19  has  been  rearranged  and  im- 
proved by  the  Redactor.  On  the  basis  of  these  efforts  we  propose 
what  seems  to  us  a  still  further  improvemant. 

I. —  The  Pcntade  of  Worship  xx.  23-26. 

(i).  Ye  shall  not  make  with  me  gods  of  silver. 

(2).  And  gods  of  gold  ye  shall  not  make  you. 

(3).  An  altar  of  earth  thou  shalt  make  me,  and  sacrifice  upon 
it  thy  whole  burnt-offerings  and  thy  peace-offerings,  thy  sheep 
and  thy  cattle.  In  all  places  where  I  record  my  name  I  will 
come  unto  thee  and  bless  thee. 

(4).  And  if  an  altar  of  stones  thou  wilt  make  me,  thou  shalt 
not  build  them  hewn.  And  if  thou  hast  t-wung  thy  tool  over  it 
thou  hast  defiled  it. 

(5).  And  thou  shalt  not  ascend  by  steps  upon  my  altar  that  thy 
nakedness  may  not  be  disclosed  upon  it. 

I  and  2  have  been  studied  in  connection  with  their  parallels  in 
the  code  of  J. 

3.  This  command  prescribes  the  material  out  of  which  the 
divine  altar  should  be  constructed,  the  earth,  nO"IN,  the  natural 
soil  of  the  ground.  It  mentions  the  two  kinds  of  sacrifices, 
both  primitive  and  Pre-Mosair,  which  might  be  made  upon  it: 
riviy  =  whole  burnt-offerings,  and  W12hi\^>  =  peace-offerings. 
Many  different  altars  are  contemplated  in  DIpDH  ^2,  which, 
in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  ^D  with  the  article  must  be 
translated  "all  places."  These  places  for  the  erection  of  altars 
were  indicated  by  divine  selection. 

The  law  of  the  Deuteronomic  Code  (xii.  5-7,  12-14)  is  as 
follows : 

"  But  unto  the  place  which  Yahweh  your  God  shall  choose  out 
of  all  your  tribes  to  put  his  name  there,  even  unto  his  habitation 
shall  ve  seek,  and  thither  thou  shalt  come  :  and  thither  ye  shall 


THE  GREATER   BOOK   OF   THE  COVENANT  213 

bring  your  burnt-ofi'erings,  and  your  sacrifices,  and  your  tithes, 
and  the  heave-otTering  of  your  hand,  and  your  vows,  and  your 
free-will  offerings,  and  the  firstlings  of  your  herd  and  of  your 
flock ;  and  there  ye  shall  eat  before  Yahweh  your  God,  and  ye 
shall  rejoice  in  all  that  ye  put  your  hand  unto,  ye  and  your 
households,  wherein  Yahweh  thy  God  hath  blessed  thee." 

'•  And  ye  shall  rejoice  before  Yahweh  your  God,  ye,  and  your 
sons,  and  your  daughters,  and  your  menservants,  and  your  maid- 
servants, and  the  Levite  that  is  within  your  gates,  forasmuch  as 
he  hath  no  portion  nor  inheritance  with  you.  Take  heed  to 
thyself  that  thou  offer  not  thy  burnt-offerings  in  every  place  that 
thou  seest ;  but  in  the  place  which  Yahweh  shall  choose  in  one 
of  thy  tribes,  there  thou  shalt  offer  thy  burnt-offerings,  and  there 
thou  shalt  do  all  that  I  command  thee." 

This  law  substitutes  "  the  place  which  Yahweh  your  God  shall 
choose  out  of  all  your  tribes  "  for  the  "  all  places  "  of  the  cov- 
enant code,  and  prohibits  offering  burnt-offerings  in  "  every 
place  that  thou  seest"  (Dlp^  7D2),  xii.  13,  thus  limiting  sacri- 
fices to  o/ie  national  altar.  The  Deuteronomic  expressions  for 
divine  selection  are  "  to  put  his  name  there  "  (Dici?),  xii.  5,  and 
"cause  his  name  to  dwell  there"  (\'3l^*^),xn.  11,  instead  of  "re- 
cord my  name  "  ("i^3Tn)  of  the  covenant  code.  The  sacrifices 
are  increased  beyond  the  whole  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offer- 
ings of  the  covenant  code  to  the  tithes,  heave-offerings,  votive- 
offerings,  free-will  offerings  and  firstlings  (xii.  6). 

The  law  of  H  is  as  follows  (Lev.  xvii.  3-9) : 

"  What  man  soever  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  that  killeth 
an  ox,  or  lamb,  or  goat,  in  the  camp,  or  that  killeth  it  without 
the  camp,  and  hath  not  brought  it  unto  the  door  of  the  tent  of 
meeting,  to  offer  it  as  an  oblation  unto  Yahweh  before  the  taber- 
nacle of  Yahweh  :  blood  shall  be  imputed  unto  that  man  ;  he 
hath  shed  blood  ;  and  that  man  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  his 
people :  to  the  end  that  the  children  of  Israel  may  bring  their 
sacrifices,  which  they  sacrifice  in  the  open  field,  even  that  they 
may  bring  them  unto  Yahweh,  unto  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing, unto  the  priest,  and  sacrifice  them  for  sacrifices  of  peace- 
offerings  unto  Yahweh.  And  the  priest  shall  sprinkle  the  blood 
upon  the  altar  of  Yahweh  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meeting,  and 
burn  the  fat  for  a  sweet  savour  unto  Yahweh.     And  they  shall 


214  APPENDIX 

no  more  sacrifice  their  sacrifices  unto  the  he  goats,  after  whom 
they  go  a  whoring.  This  shall  be  a  statute  forever  unto  them 
throughout  their  generations.  And  thou  shalt  say  unto  them, 
Whatsoever  man  there  be  of  the  house  of  Israel,  or  of  the 
strangers  that  sojourn  among  them,  that  offereth  a  burnt-offering 
or  eacrifice,  and  bringeth  it  not  unto  the  door  of  the  tent  of 
meeting,  to  sacrifice  it  unto  Yahweh  ;  even  that  man  shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people." 

This  law  is  a  still  further  advance.  The  sacrifices  are  limited 
under  severe  penalty  to  the  altar  at  the  door  of  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing. 

4.  The  native  rock  or  natural  stones  were  allowed  for  use  in 
altar  building  as  well  as  the  natural  soil  of  the  ground,  only 
these  must  remain  in  their  natural  condition.  No  tool  could 
be  used  upon  them.  With  this  prohibition  compare  the  law  of 
P.     (Exodus  xxvii.  1-5.) 

"  And  thou  shalt  make  the  altar  of  acacia  wood,  five  cubits 
long,  and  five  cubits  broad ;  the  altar  shall  be  four-square  :  and 
the  height  thereof  shall  be  three  cubits.  And  thou  shalt  make 
the  horns  of  it  upon  the  four  corners  thereof :  the  horns  thereof 
shall  be  of  one  piece  with  it :  and  thou  shalt  overlay  it  with 
brass,  and  thou  shalt  make  its  pots  to  take  away  its  ashes,  and 
its  shovels,  and  its  basons,  and  its  fleshhooks,  and  its  firepans : 
all  the  vessels  thereof  thou  shalt  make  of  brass.  And  thou  shalt 
make  for  it  a  grating  of  network  of  brass  ;  and  upon  the  net 
shalt  thou  make  four  brasen  rings  in  the  four  corners  thereof. 
And  thou  shalt  put  it  under  the  ledge  round  the  altar  be- 
neath, that  the  net  may  reach  halfway  up  the  altar." 

This  law  makes  the  use  of  tools  necessary  both  in  cutting  the 
acacia  wood  and  in  overlaying  with  brass.  The  material  of  the 
covenant  code  is  no  longer  thought  of. 

5.  The  sanctity  of  the  altar  was  also  maintained  by  the  prohi- 
bition of  any  exposure  of  the  person  there,  even  such  as  might 
arise  in  the  use  of  stairs,  miy  has  here  the  same  sense  as  in 
Lev.  xviii.  6  sq.  These  three  commands  form  a  group  in  the  un- 
folding of  the  reverence  of  the  divine  name  of  the  third  Com- 
mand of  the  tables. 

There  seems  to  be  rather  an  abrupt  transition  from  the  pen- 
tade  of  Worship  to  the  D''DDt^D.      We  would  expect  other  laws 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      215 

of  worship  to  follow.  It  may  be  that  the  Redactor  has  omitted 
one  or  more  pcnlades  and  used  them  elsewhere.  If  the  closing 
decalogue  of  our  book  xxiii.  10-19,  immediately  followed,  it 
would  seem  more  natural  than  the  present  order.  We  must 
leave  these  questions  undecided  for  the  present. 

II. —  The  Pen  fade  of  the  Rights  of  the  Hebrew  Slave  (xxi.  2-6). 

(i).  If  thou  acquire  a  Hebrew  slave,  six  years  shall  he  serve, 
and  in  the  seventh  go  forth  to  freedom  without  price. 

(2).  If  by  himself  he  came,  by  himself  he  shall  go  forth. 

(3).  If  he  were  married,  his  wife  shall  go  forth  with  him. 

(4).  If  his  lord  give  him  a  wife  and  she  bear  him  sons  and 
daughters,  the  wife  and  her  children  shall  belong  to  her  lord  and 
he  shall  go  forth  alone. 

(5).  But  if  the  slave  earnestly  say,  I  love  my  lord,  my  wife  and 
my  children,  I  will  not  go  forth  free,  then  his  lord  shall  bring 
him  unto  God  and  bring  him  to  the  door  or  to  the  post,  and 
bore  his  ear  with  his  awl,  and  he  shall  become  his  slave  forever. 

The  Deuteronomic  code,  (xv.  12-18),  gives  (i)  and  (5)  in  differ- 
ent language  and  greatly  enlarged  : 

(i).  The  Deuteronomic  code  uses  "IDTS"'  for  X\^\>T\  and  'Mxhp'Pi 
^t^n  for  "'U'Sn^  NV%  thus  : 

.    :   T  .    :  T|-        •••• 

"  If  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man  or  woman  be  sold  unto  thee, 
he  shall  serve  thee  six  years  and  in  the  seventh  year  thou  shalt 
dismiss  him  free  from  thee  ;  and  when  thou  dismissest  him  free 
from  thee  thou  shalt  not  dismiss  him  empty." 

(5).  The  Deuteronomic  code,  vs.  16-17,  gives  : 

"  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  if  he  say  unto  th:e :  I  will  not  go 
out  from  thee.  I  love  thee  and  thy  house,  because  it  is  good  for 
me  to  be  with  thee,  then  thou  shalt  take  the  awl  and  put  it  in 
his  ear  and  in  the  door,  and  he  shall  become  thy  slave  for- 
ever.    So  also  shalt  thou  do  to  thy  female  slave." 

DM?Xn  is  the  divine  name  usual  in  the  second  Elohist. 
yVI  is  only  here  in  the  verbal  form,  the  noun  yviO  only 
here  and  Deut.  xv.  17,  both  of  them  archaic  terms.  The  Deu- 
teronomic code  embraces  male  and  female  slaves  under  the  same 
laws.     Here  only  the  male  slave  is  contemplated. 

The  law  of  P  is  given  in  Lev.  xxv.  39-46 : 


216  APPENDIX 

"And  if  thy  brother  be  waxen  poor  with  thee,  and  sell  himself 
unto  thee  ;  thou  shalt  not  make  him  to  serve  as  a  bondservant. 
As  an  hired  servant,  and  as  a  sojourner,  he  shall  be  with  thee  ; 
he  shall  serve  with  thee  unto  the  year  of  jubile  :  then  shall  he 
go  out  from  thee,  he  and  his  children  with  him,  and  shall  return 
unto  his  own  family,  and  unto  the  possession  of  his  fathers  shall 
he  return.  For  they  are  my  servants,  which  I  brought  forth  out 
of  the  land  of  Egypt :  they  shall  not  be  sold  as  bondmen.  Thou 
shalt  not  rule  over  him  with  rigour ;  but  shalt  fear  thy  God. 
And  as  for  thy  bondmen,  and  thy  bondmaids,  which  thou  shalt 
have ;  of  the  nations  that  are  round  about  you,  of  them  shall 
ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids.  Moreover  of  the  children  of 
the  strangers  that  do  sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye 
buy,  and  of  their  families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  have 
begotten  in  your  land  ;  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And 
ye  shall  make  them  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after  you, 
to  hold  for  a  possession  ;  of  them  shall  ye  take  your  bondmen 
forever:  but  over  your  brethren  the  children  of  Israel  ye  shall 
not  rule,  one  over  another,  with  rigour." 

In  the  Priests'  Code  (i)  the  verb  n^OJ  is  used  as  in  D,  and 
the  year  of  jubile  takes  the  place  of  the  seventh  year.  The 
Hebrew  slave  was  to  be  treated  as  a  hired  servant  and  a  so- 
journer. (4).  He  and  his  children  "  shall  go  out  from  thee." 
(T[DyD  5<i^)  (5).  There  is  a  distinction  between  the  Hebrew 
slave  and  the  foreign  slave :  the  latter  could  be  enslaved 
forever,  but  not  the  Hebrew  slave.  This  seems  to  reverse  the 
law  in  E  and  D  in  this  respect. 

III. — Pcntadc  of  Hebrew  Slave  Cojicubines  (xxi.  7-1 1). 

(i).  If  a  man  shall  sell  his  daughter  for  a  slave  woman  she 
shall  not  go  forth  as  the  slaves  go  forth. 

(2).  If  she  be  displeasing  to  her  lord  who  has  appointed  her 
for  himself,  he  shall  let  her  be  redeemed.  To  a  foreign  people 
he  shall  not  have  the  power  to  sell  her  when  he  has  acted 
treacheously  with  her. 

(3).  But  if  for  his  son  he  appointed  her,  according  to  the 
rights  of  daughters  he  shall  do  for  her. 

(4).  If  another  he  take  to  himself,  her  (provision  of)  flesh, 
her  clothing  and  cohabiting  with  her  he  shall  not  withhold. 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      21 Y 

(5).  And  if  these  three  things  he  will  not  do  to  her  she  shall 
go  forth  without  price,  without  silver. 

This  scries  gives  us  not  laws  for  dealing  with  a  female  slave 
who  according  to  Deut.  xv.  17,  was  to  be  treated  exactly  as  a 
male  slave ;  but  for  female  slaves  who  were  rather  concubines. 
There  are  no  parallels  to  this  Pentade  in  the  other  codes. 

2.  nn  is  used  especially  for  treacherous  dealing  between  the 
sexes,  but  only  here  in  the  Hexateuch. 

4.  "iNt:*  =  flesh  —  that  is  the  meat  of  animals  as  the  chief 
provision  of  her  support.  It  is  only  here  and  Ps.  Ixxviii.  20, 
27,  in  this  sense.  It  is  used  in  Lev.  xviii.,  xxi.  2,  (H),  xxv.  49, 
Num.  xxvii.  it,  (P),  of  near  relatives.  niD3  is  also  archaic, 
found  again  xxii.  26,  of  our  code  and  in  Job.  It  is  found  else- 
where only  in  the  brief  law,  Deut.  xxii.  12,  respecting  the 
fringes,  and  in  the  narrative  of  the  Ephraimitic  writer,  Gen.  xx. 
16,  and  Isaiah  iv.  3.  njy  is  only  found  here  from  ])]}  =  dwell, 
meaning  cohabitation.  This  was  her  right,  as  well  as  food 
and  clothing,  and  these  things  could  not  be  withheld  from  her. 

IV. — Pentade  of  Acts  of  VioLmce  (xxi.  12-16). 

(i).  Whoso  smiteth  a  man  and  he  die,  shall  be  put  to  a  violent 
death. 

(2).  But  as  for  the  one  who  hath  not  hunted  after  him,  but 
God  has  caused  him  to  fall  into  his  hands — I  will  appoint  thee  a 
place  whither  he  may  flee. 

(3).  But  if  a  man  act  passionately  against  his  neighbour,  to 
slay  him  by  craft,  from  my  altar  thou  shalt  take  him  to  die. 

(4).  Whoso  smiteth  his  father  or  his  mother  shall  be  put  to  a 
violent  death. 

(5).  Whoso  stealeth  a  man  and  selleth  him,  or  he  be  found 
in  his  possession,  he  shall  be  put  to  a  violent  death. 

1.  This  law  is  found  in  the  priests'  code  in  the  form:  "A 
man  when  he  smiteth  any  human  person  shall  be  put  to  a  violent 
death."  Lev.  xxiv.  17.  D^^^  t'^}  is  used  instead  of  l'''N*.  In 
Deut.  xix.  4,  it  is  in  the  form  inViTlX  .13^  nL''S» 

2.  This  case  in  which  the  man  did  not  hunt  for  him  (mV)  is 
presented  in  the  Deuteronomic  code,  xix.  4,  thus:  "  without 
knowledge,  he  not  hating  him    i^W)   yesterday   and  the  day 


218  APPENDIX 

before  "  with  an  illustration  v.  5.  In  the  priest's  code  Num. 
XXXV.  22,  "  If  accidentally  without  enmity  (HTN)  he  push 
him  (!]"in)  or  cast  any  vessel  upon  him  without  purpose " 
(nnv).  The  appointed  place  is  in  accordance  with  the  next 
command,  the  divine  altar.  In  accordance  with  the  priest's  code 
and  Deuteronomic  code  it  is  one  of  the  cities  of  refuge.  (Num. 
XXXV.,  Deut.  xix.). 

3.  The  case  of  intentional  murder  is  here  presented  as  an  act 
of  violent  passion  (I^T)  and  of  craft  (n^ny).  In  the  Deu- 
teronomic code  xix.  11  it  is  expressed  :  "  If  there  be  a  man 
hating  (N^^O  his  neighbour  and  he  lie  in  wait  for  him  (3"IN) 
and  rise  up  against  him  and  smite  a  person  (C*SJ)  and  he  die." 
In  the  priest's  code,  Num.  xxxv.  20-21,  it  is:  "If,  in  hatred 
(riNJbO)  he  push  him  or  cast  anything  upon  him  designedly 
(iTnV3)  so  that  he  has   died,  or   if   in  enmity   (nTX3)  he  hath 

smitten  him  with  his  hand  so  that  he  hath  died."  In  these  cases 
according  to  our  code  he  is  taken  from  the  divine  altar  and  put 
to  death.  The  cases  in  i  Kgs.  i.  50,  11,  28,  were  in  accordance 
with  this  code.  According  to  the  Deuteronomic  and  priests' 
codes  he  was  delivered  over  from  the  cities  of  refuge  into  the 
hands  of  the  avenger  of  blood. 

4.  )T2  NVD:^,  or  he  (the  man  stolen)  be  found    in  his   hand 

=  power  =  possession.  Thus  there  are  two  cases,  in  the  one, 
the  stolen  man  was  sold  ;  in  the  other,  the  stolen  man  became 
the  slave  of  the  thief.  In  either  case  the  man-stealer  was  to 
be  put  to  a  violent  death.  In  Deut.  xxiv.  7  it  is  thus  ex- 
pressed :  "  If  a  man  be  found  stealing  a  person  (K*2J)  from 
among  his  brethren  the  children  of  Israel,  and  he  lay  hands 
upon  him  and  sell  him,  that  thief  shall  die." 

V.  17  :  "Whoso  curseth  his  father  or  his  mother  shall  be 
put  to  death." 

It  is  doubtful  whether  this  command  really  belongs  in  this 
place.  It  is  placed  by  the  LXX.  in  immediate  connection  with 
V.  15.  Dillmann  thinks  that  was  the  proper  place,  and  he  sep- 
arates the  law  of  the  man-stealer  as  beginning  another  pen- 
tade,  all  the  rest  of  which  has  been  used  by  the  Redactor 
elsewhere.  But  we  cannot  see  the  propriety  of  attaching  a  com- 
mand against  irreverence  with  a   series   of   deeds  of  violence, 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      219 

whereas  men-stealing  belongs  properly  to  that  series.  In  our 
judgment  this  parental  law  has  crept  into  the  text  from  a 
marginal  note  or  reference.  It  is  more  appropriate  to  the 
pentade,  xxii.  27-29.  It  may  be  the  remnant  of  a  pentade, 
making,  with  xxii.  27-29,  a  decalogue.  We  find  the  same  com- 
mand in  similar  terms  in  Lev.  xx.  9  (H)  :  "Verily  whosoever 
curseth  his  father  or  his  mother  shall  be  put  to  a  violent  death. 
His  father  and  his  mother  he  has  cursed,  his  blood  be  upon 
him."  The  law  of  the  rebellious  son  in  Deut.  xxi.  18-21,  also  in- 
volves the  penalty  of  death  by  stoning. 

V. — Pentade  of  Injuries  (xxi.  18-25). 

(i).  And  if  men  strive  together  and  one  smite  the  other  with 
a  stone  or  with  his  fist  and  he  die  not  but  taketh  to  his  bed  ; — if 
he  rise  and  walk  about  without  his  house  on  his  staff,  then  the 
one  who  smote  him  shall  be  quit.  Only  the  time  of  his  abiding 
at  home  he  shall  pay  and  he  shall  cause  him  to  be  entirely 
healed. 

(2).  And  if  a  man  smite  his  slave  or  slave-woman,  with  his 
rod  and  he  die  under  his  hand  he  shall  be  severely  punished, 

(3).  If  he  linger  a  day  or  two  he  shall  not  be  punished,  for  he 
is  his  silver. 

(4).  And  if  men  strive  v/ith  one  another  and  smite  a  woman 
with  child  and  her  children  go  forth  from  her  and  no  hurt  follow, 
he  shall  be  heavily  fined  according  as  the  woman's  husband  shall 
impose  upon  him  and  he  shall  pay  in  accordance  with  the  de- 
cision of  the  judges. 

(5).  But  if  hurt  transpire  thou  shalt  give  person  for  person, 
eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  foot  for  foot,  burn- 
ing for  burning,  wound  for  wound,  bruise  for  bruise. 

The  principle  of  judgment  is  given  in  connection  with  the 
special  case  of  the  injury  to  a  woman  with  child.  It  doubtless 
applied  also  to  all  other  injuries  to  persons,  of  a  graver  sort, 
such  as  we  have  had  in  the  last  two  pentades  or  indeed  in  this 
decalogue  of  laws  of  injuries,  xxi.  12-25.  This  lex  talionts  is  also 
found  in  Lev.  xxiv.  19  sq.  in  connection  with  laws  respecting 
injuries  in  a  brief  form  ;  "  fracture  for  fracture  (13L"),  eye  for 
eye,  tooth  for  tooth.  According  as  one  puts  a  blemish  in  a  man 
so  shall  it  be  put  in  him."    13C^  is  not  used  in  our  code.      In 


APPENDIX 

Deut  xix.  21,  the  law  is  given  in  connection  with  false  witness- 
ing, "  person  for  person,  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for 
hand,  foot  for  foot."  The  Deuteronomic  code  uses  3  =  for, 
where  our  code  and  priest's  code  use  nnn. 

VT.-VII. — Pcntades.  Injuries  in  Connection  with  Property  in 
Slaves  or  Cattle  (xxi.  26-37). 

(i).  And  if  a  man  smite  the  eye  of  his  slave  or  the  eye  of  his 
slave-woman  and  destroy  it,  to  freedom  he  shall  dismiss  him 
for  his  eye's  soke. 

(2).  And  if  the  tooth  of  his  slave  or  the  tooth  of  his  slave- 
woman  he  cause  to  fall  out,  to  freedom  he  shall  dismiss  him  for 
his  tooth's  sake. 

(3).  And  if  an  ox  gore  a  man  or  woman  and  he  die,  the  ox 
shall  be  stoned  to  death  and  his  flesh  shall  not  be  eaten.  The 
owner  of  the  ox  shall  be  quit. 

(4).  But  if  the  ox  was  wont  to  push  with  the  horns  yesterday 
and  the  day  before,  and  it  used  to  be  made  known  to  his  owner 
and  he  used  not  to  keep  him  in,  and  he  shall  kill  a  man  or  a 
Woman,  the  ox  shall  be  stoned  and  his  owner  also  shall  be  put  to 
death. 

(5).  If  a  ransom  be  imposed  upon  him,  he  shall  give  the  re- 
demption of  himself  according  to  all  that  is  imposed  upon  him, 
whether  he  gore  a  son  or  gore  a  daughter,  according  to  the  law 
it  shall  be  done  to  him. 

(6).  If  a  slave  or  a  slave- woman,  the  ox  gore,  thirty  shekels  of 
silver  shall  he  give  to  the  owner  and  the  ox  shall  be  stoned. 

(7).  And  if  a  man  open  a  pit  or  if  a  man  dig  a  pit  and  do  not 
cover  it  and  an  ox  or  ass  fall  therein,  the  owner  of  the  pit  shall 
pay.  Silver  shall  he  render  to  its  owner  and  the  dead  animal 
shall  be  his  own. 

(8).  And  if  one  man's  ox  smite  another  man's  ox  and  it  die, 
they  shall  sell  the  living  ox  and  halve  its  silver  and  also  the 
dead  ox  shall  they  halve. 

(9).  Or  if  it  was  known  that  the  ox  was  wont  to  push  with  its 
horns  yesterday  and  the  day  before  and  his  owner  used  not  to 
keep  him  in  he  shall  pay  heavily,  ox  for  ox,  and  the  dead  ox 
shall  belong  to  him. 

(10).  If  a  man  steal  an  ox  or  a  sheep  and  slaughter  it  or  sell 
it,  five  cattle  shall  he  pay  for  the  ox  and  four  sheep  for  the  sheep. 


TOE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      221 

VIII. — Pcntadr.      Theft  and  Damage  to  Property  (xxii.  1-5). 

(i).  If  the  thief  be  found  while  breaking  in  and  he  be  smitten 
and  die,  there  shall  be  no  blood-guiltiness  for  him. 

(2).  If  the  sun  has  risen  upon  him  there  shall  be  blood-guilti- 
ness for  him.  He  shall  pay  heavily  and  if  he  have  nothing  he 
shall  be  sold  for  his  theft. 

(3).  If  the  theft  be  at  all  found  in  his  hand  alive,  from  ox  to 
ass  to  sheep,  he  shall  pay  double. 

(4).  If  a  man  shall  cause  a  field  or  vineyard  to  be  devoured 
and  shall  send  his  cattle  and  they  feed  in  another  man's  field, 
he  shall  pay,  making  good  his  field  and  making  good  his  vine- 
yard. 

(5).  If  fire  go  forth  and  find  thorns,  and  stacks  of  grain  or 
standing  grain,  or  a  field  be  consumed,  the  one  who  kindled  the 
fire  shall  pay. 

IX.  and  X. — Decalogue  of  Breaches  of  Trust  (xxii.  6-16). 

(i).  If  a  man  give  his  neighbour  silver  or  vessels  to  keep  and  it 
be  stolen  from  the  man's  house,  if  the  thief  be  found  he  shall 
pay  double. 

(2).  If  the  thief  cannot  be  found,  the  master  of  the  house  shall 
be  brought  near  unto  God  to  see  whether  he  has  not  put  forth 
his  hand  to  the  property  of  his  neighbour.  For  all  kinds  of 
transgressions,  for  ox,  for  ass,  for  sheep,  for  garment,  for  any 
lost  thing  which  any  one  saith  that  it  is  his,  unto  God  shall  the 
cause  of  both  come.  He  whom  God  pronounces  wicked  shall 
double  to  his  neighbour. 

(3).  If  a  man  give  unto  his  neighbour  an  ass  or  ox  or  sheep  or 
any  cattle  to  keep  and  it  die  or  be  hurt  or  captured  without  any 
one  seeing  it,  an  oath  of  Jehovah  shall  be  between  them  that  he 
hath  not  put  forth  his  hand  to  the  property  of  his  neighbour 
and  its  owner  shall  accept  it,  and  he  shall  not  pay. 

(4).  If  it  was  stolen  away  from  him  he  shall  pay  its  owner. 

(5),  If  it  was  torn  in  pieces  he  shall  bring  it  as  a  witness.  That 
which  is  torn  in  pieces  he  shall  not  pay  for. 

(6).  And  if  a  man  ask  it  of  his  neighbour  and  it  be  injured  or 
die,  its  owner  not  being  with  it,  he  shall  pay  it  all. 

(7).  If  its  owner  was  with  it  he  shall  not  pay. 

(8).  If  it  were  hired  it  came  for  its  hire. 


222  APPENDIX 

(9).  And  if  a  man  entice  a  virgin  who  is  not  betrothed  and  lie 
with  her  he  shall  buy  her  altogether  to  himself  for  a  wife. 

(10).  If  her  father  utterly  refuse  to  give  her  to  him  he  shall 
weigh  out  silver  according  to  the  price  of  virgins. 

The  first  pentade  has  to  do  with  property  which  the  owner 
wishes  to  entrust  with  his  neighbor.  The  second  pentade  has 
to  do  with  property  where  the  request  for  it  comes  from  the 
side  of  the  person  who  would  borrow  or  hire  or  buy  it  from  the 
owner.  The  seduced  damsel  belongs  to  the  latter  because  of 
her  value  to  her  father  as  property.  The  Deuteronomic  code 
enlarges  this  law  in  Deuteronomy  xxii.  28-29. 

"  If  a  man  find  a  damsel  that  is  a  virgin,  which  is  not  betrothed, 
and  lay  hold  on  her,  and  lie  with  her,  and  they  be  found ;  then 
the  man  that  lay  with  her  shall  give  unto  the  damsel's  father 
fifty  shekels  of  silver,  and  she  shall  be  his  wife,  because  he  hath 
humbled  her;  he  may  not  put  her  away  all  his  days." 

D  uses  rh'^T\1  lyj  for  the  rh^TO.  of  E,  fixes  a  definite  sum 
to  be  paid  in  any  case  to  the  father,  and  refuses  the  option  given 
to  the  father  in  E.  The  man  must  pay  the  price  to  the  father, 
must  marry  the  virgin,  and  must  keep  her  all  his  life. 

Fragments  of  several  Pejitades  (xxii.  17-19). 

(i).  Whoso  practiceth  magic  shall  not  live. 

(2).  Every  one  who  lieth  with  a  beast  shall  be  put  to  a  violent 
death. 

(3).  Whoso  sacrificeth  to  gods  except  to  Jehovah  only  shall  be 
put  under  the  ban. 

It  needs  but  a  moment's  consideration  to  see  that  the  only 
bond  of  unity  between  these  commands  is  in  the  penalty  of  death. 
This  penalty  is,  however,  expressed  in  a  different  way  in  each 
command,  and  there  is  no  resemblance  whatever  between  any  of 
them  in  structure  or  idea  such  as  we  have  found  in  the  ten 
groups  that  have  preceded  and  will  find  in  the  six  groups  to  fol- 
low. 

I.  Looking  now  at  the  prohibition  of  magic  and  the  term 
female  magician  n2Ub>D,  we  notice  the  peculiarity  of  this  term 
and  also  the  absence  of  any  reference  to  necromancy  which 
was  the  most  striking  feature  in  the  magical  rites  of  the  Canaan- 
ites.      In  the  Deuteronomic    code,   xviii.    10-14,   there   are  no 


I 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  TIIE  COVENANT  223 

less  than  eight  distinct  terms  used  for  these  rites.  In  the 
Holiness  code  there  are  five  passages  in  which  there  is  a 
reference  to  this  subject.  In  three  of  them,  Lev.  xix.  31 ;  xx. 
6,  27,  the  same  two  terms  are  used,  n3N  ,3"1X  and  ^2VT.  In 
the  other  passage,  Lev.  xix.  26,  the  verbal  forms  t^nJD  and 
piyn  are  employed.  The  emphasis  upon  this  subject  in  H 
shows  that  this  must  have  been  a  serious  and  common  trans- 
gression, when  this  code  w^as  codified.  These  several  commands 
were  doubtless  taken  from  several  older  codes. 

This  one  command  probably  represents  here  an  original  pen- 
tade  relating  to  this  class,  and  it  may  be  the  other  commands  of 
this  pentade  have  gone  into  the  Holiness  code. 

2.  This  is  the  only  case  of  sexual  crimes  or  vices  mentioned 
in  our  Covenant  code.  We  cannot  suppose  that  this  subject 
could  have  been  so  neglected  at  this  time  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  great  sins  of  the  Canaanites  and  of  the  Patriarchal 
history,  and  of  the  Israelites,  during  their  wanderings,  were  in 
this  class.  We  have  here  a  single  command  representing  an 
entire  decalogice.  There  is  such  a  decalogue  in  the  Holiness 
code,  Lev.  xviii.  6-16,  followed  by  seven  other  commands  of  the 
same  sort  in  vs.  17-23.  Another  series,  mostly  parallel  but  in  a 
different  order,  is  found  in  the  same  code,  Lev.  xx.  10-21,  of 
twelve  commands.  The  Holiness  code  there  combines  laws  of 
that  sort  from  a  variety  of  sources.  On  that  account  the  Re- 
dactor seems  to  have  omitted  them  here.  The  Deuteronomic 
code  has  several  special  cases  in  xxii.  13-30. 

(3).  This  law  stands  by  itself  in  a  peculiar  manner.  It  is  also 
the  sole  remnant  of  an  original  pentade.  The  Deuteronomic 
code,  xiii.,  gives  the  fullest  statement  on  this  subject.  The  com- 
mand, as  given  here,  is  peculiar  in  the  expression  n^^  rnn"'i5"'n^2. 
This  is  so  against  the  style  of  our  Covenant  code  that  we  do  not 
hesitate  to  follow  the  Samaritan  text  and  strike  it  from  our  text 
as  having  crept  in  from  a  marginal  note.  The  Samaritan  text 
inserts  Dnn5<  after  D^ni^N.  This  would  then  be  necessary, 
so  that  the  verse  should  read,  "  Whoso  sacrificeth  to  other  gods 
shall  be  put  under  the  ban."  The  Dnn  (=  ban)  was  a  sacrifice. 
The  penalty  is  sacrifice  for  sacrifice,  or  an  exact  retribution.  The 
same  penalty  is  assigned  by  Deut.  xiii.  16,  to  an  idolatrous  cit". 
Possibly  an  original  decalogue  was  constituted  by  the  combina- 
tion of  the  pentades  (i)  and  (3). 


224  APPENDIX 

XI. — Pentade  of  Dealings  with  the  Weak  and  Poor  (xxii.  20-26). 

(i).  A  stranger  thou  shalt  not  maltreat  and  thou  shalt  not  op- 
press him  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Eg5'pt. 

(2).  Thou  shalt  not  afflict  any  widow  or  orphan.  If  thou  at  all 
afflict  him.  surely,  if  he  cry  unto  me,  I  will  attentively  hear  his 
cry  and  my  anger  will  burn  and  I  will  slay  you  with  the  sword 
and  your  wives  shall  be  widows  and  your  children  orphans. 

(3).  If  thou  lend  my  people  silver,  the  poor  man  who  is  with 
thee,  thou  shalt  not  become  like  a  money-lender  to  him. 

(4).  Ye  shall  not  put  upon  him  usury. 

(5).  If  thou  take  the  cloke  of  thy  neighbour  as  a  safe-pledge, 
ere  the  sun  go  down  thou  shalt  return  it  to  him,  for  it  is  his  only 
covering.  It  is  his  cloke  for  his  skin.  In  what  shall  he  lie  down? 
And  it  shall  come  to  pass  when  he  cry  unto  me  I  will  hear,  for  I 
am  gracious. 

This  pentade  is  remarkable  for  the  reasons  assigned.  They 
are  so  tender.  The  certainty  of  divine  interposition  in  behalf  of 
the  stranger,  widow  and  orphan,  and  poor,  is  so  grand. 

1.  The  law  of  the  stranger  is  fuller  and  richer  in  Deut.  xxiv. 
17-18. 

"  Thou  shalt  not  wrest  the  judgment  of  the  stranger,  Jior  of  the 
fatherless ;  nor  take  the  widow's  raiment  to  pledge :  but  thou 
shalt  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bondman  in  Egypt,  and  Yahweh 
thy  God  redeemed  thee  thence  :  therefore  I  command  thee  to  do 
this  thing." 

It  is  also  emphasized  among  the  attributes  of  God,  Deut.  x. 
18-19,  ^'^d  in  the  curse  Dt.  xxvii.  19.  In  the  Sanctity  code.  Lev. 
xix.  33-34,  it  is  also  grandly  set  forth. 

"And  if  a  stranger  sojourn  with  thee  in  your  land,  ye  shall  not 
do  him  wrong.  The  stranger  that  sojourneth  with  you  shall  be 
unto  you  as  the  homeborn  among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him 
as  thyself ;  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of  Egypt :  I  am 
Yahweh  your  God." 

It  is  found  in  its  second  member  in  somewhat  more  fulness  in 
connection  with  a  pentade  of  justice  in  our  code,  Ex.  xxiii.  19. 
This  might  seem  to  be  a  vain  repetition,  were  it  not  for  the  pro- 
priety of  the  prohibition  from  both  of  these  points  of  view. 

2,  The  law  of  the  widow  and  orphan  is  richer  and  grander  here 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      225 

than  anywhere  else.     It  is  associated  with  the  law  of  the  stranger 
in  the  passage  cited  above  from  D. 

3.  Kindness  to  the  poor  is  emphasized  in  the  Priests'  code, 
Lev.  XXV.  35:  "  If  thy  brother  wax  poor  and  his  hand  becomes 
feeble  with  thee,  thou  shalt  strengthen  him  whether  a  stranger 
or  a  sojourner,  and  he  shall  live  with  thee." 

4.  The  propriety  of  separating  this  from  the  previous  command 
is  in  the  change  to  the  second  plural  of  the  verb  of  command, 
and  in  the  emphatic  prohibition  of  usury.  Usury  is  forbidden  in 
Deut.  xxiii.  19-21:  "Thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury  to  thy 
brother,  usury  of  silver,  usury  of  food,  usury  of  any  thing  that  is 
lent  upon  usury.  Unto  a  foreigner  thou  mayest  lend  on  usury, 
but  unto  thy  brother  thou  mayest  not  lend  on  usury."  In  the 
priests'  code  also,  Lev.  xxv,  36,  "  Do  not  take  from  him  usury  or 
interest."  rT'^nn  =  interest  is  only  found  in  the  Pentateuch  in 
this  passage. 

5.  The  law  of  pledges  is  fuller  in  Deut.  xxiv.  6,  10-13,  prohibit- 
ing the  taking  of  the  hand-mill  and  the  going  into  his  house  to 
take  the  pledge  from  him,  as  well  as  our  law  of  the  cloke. 


XII. — Pentade  of  Reverence  and  Offerings  (xxii.  27-29). 

(i).  God  thou  shalt  not  revile. 

(2).  And  a  prince  among  thy  people  thou  shalt  not  curse. 

(3).  Thy  abundance  and  thy  overflow  of  liquids  thou  shalt  not 
delay  (to  offer). 

(4).  The  first  born  of  thy  sons  thou  shalt  give  me. 

(5).  So  shalt  thou  do  to  thy  cattle,  to  thy  sheep;  seven  days 
shall  it  be  with  its  mother,  on  the  eighth  day  thou  shalt  give 
it  to  me. 

I.  DM7i<  is  God  and  not  elders,  and  on  this  account  the  rever- 
ence of  t^^C'J,  the  prince,  constitutes  a  second  command.  These 
two  make  up  a  group  of  laws  of  reverence.  We  would  expect 
here  also  a  law  with  reference  to  reverence  of  parents  such  as  we 
found  in  xxi.  17. 

3.  This  command  seems  to  concern  first  fruits  in  recognition 
of  the  ns^O  =  abundance,  and  V^T  =  tears  =  overflow  of  oil 
and  wine  (only  found  here  in  this  sense),  of  the  harvests. 

4.  The  law  of  the  first  born  is  given  in  the  little  book  of  the 


^26  APPENDIX 

Covenant,  Ex.  xxxiv.  20,  in  connection  with  the  feast  of  unleav- 
ened bread,  where  5  is  also  connected  with  it.  It  is  also  given 
in  the  historical  narratives,  Ex.  xiii.  2,  1 1  seg. ;  in  the  code  of 
Holiness,  Lev.  xviii.  15  sc-q.  ;  and  in  the  Priests'  code,  Num.  iii. 
12  seq.,  viii.  16  seq.  We  notice  the  absence  of  any  provision  for 
the  redemption  of  unclean  animals  such  as  is  in  the  little  book 
of  the  Covenant,  xxxiv.  20  (J),  and  of  man  as  well  as  unclean 
animals  in  Lev.  xviii.  15  seq.  (H). 

Laws  of  Purity  (xxii.  30). 

(i).  And  men  of  holiness  shall  ye  be  unto  me. 
(2).  And  flesh  torn  in  the  field  ye  shall  not  eat.     To  the  dogs 
ye  shall  cast  it  out. 

(i).  These  two  laws  seem  to  us  to  be  fragments  of  a  pentade 
or  decalogue,  the  rest  of  which  the  Redactor  has  used  elsewhere. 
The  first  command  is  so  general  that  it  seems  to  demand  a  series 
to  follow.  It  is  hard  to  explain  the  absence  of  the  distinction 
between  clean  and  unclean  animals,  but  especially  the  failure  to 
prohibit  the  use  of  blood.  The  prohibition  of  blood  is  in  the 
Deuteronomic  code,  Deut.  xii.  16,  23-27,  xv.  23,  and  in  the  Holi- 
ness code.  Lev.  xvii.  10-14,  xix.  26  a.  The  laws  of  the  clean  and 
unclean  of  animals  are  given  in  the  Priests'  code,  Lev.  xi.  seq., 
and  the  Deuteronomic  code,  Deut.  xiv. 

(2).  The  law  as  to  animals  found  dead  in  the  field  unfolds  in 
the  subsequent  legislation  as  follows  : 

D. — "  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  anything  that  dieth  of  itself  :  thou  may- 
est  give  it  unto  the  stranger  that  is  within  thy  gates,  that 
he  may  eat  it ;  or  thou  mayest  sell  it  unto  a  foreignei  :  for 
thou  art  an  holy  people  unto  Yahweh  thy  God."  (Dt. 
xiv.  21.) 
H. — "  And  every  soul  that  eateth  that  which  dieth  of  itself,  or 
that  which  is  torn  of  beasts,  whether  he  be  home-born  or 
a  stranger,  he  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  bathe  himself 
in  water,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even  :  then  shall  he  be 
clean.  But  if  he  wash  them  not,  nor  bathe  his  flesh,  then 
he  shall  bear  his  iniquity,"  (Lev.  xvii.  15,  16.) 
P. — "  And  if  any  beast,  of  which  ye  may  eat,  die ;  he  that  touch- 
eth  the  carcass  thereof  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even. 
And  he  that  eateth  of  the  carcass  of  it  shall  wash  his 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      227 

clothes,  and  be  unclean  until  the  even  :  he  also  that  beareth 
the  carcass  of  it  shall  wash  his  clothes,  and  be  unclean 
until  the  even."     (Lev.  xi.  39,  40.) 
In  E  the  carcass  of  the  animal  found  dead  in  the  fields  was  to  be 
cast  to  the  dogs.     In  D  it  might  be  given  to  the  stranger  to  eat 
and  sold  to  the  foreigner.     In  H  it  could  not  be  eaten  by  home- 
born  or  stranger.     In  P  the  distinction  between  stranger  and 
home-born  has  passed  away  and  the  prohibition  is  a  universal  one. 

XIII. — Pentade  of  Testimony  (xxiii.  1-3). 

(i).  Thou  shalt  not  lift  up  a  vain  report. 

(2).  Put  not  thy  hand  with  a  wicked  man  to  be  a  witness  of 
violence. 

(3).  Thou  shalt  not  go  after  many  to  do  evil. 

(4).  And  thou  shalt  not  respond  to  a  cause  to  incline  after 
many  to  wrest  it. 

(5).  And  a  poor  man  thou  shalt  not  fav^our  in  his  cause. 

This  pentade  is  to  be  compared  with  a  similar  one  in  the  code 
of  Holiness,  Lev.  xix.  15-18,  and  with  the  law  of  the  witness, 
Deut.  xix.  15-20. 

Lev.  xix.  15-18. 

"Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteousness  in  judgment:  thou  shalt  not 
respect  the  person  of  the  poor,  nor  honour  the  person  of  the 
mighty  :  but  in  righteousness  shalt  thou  judge  thy  neighbor. 
Thou  shalt  not  go  up  and  down  as  a  talebearer  among  thy  people  : 
neither  shalt  thou  stand  against  the  blood  of  thy  neighbor :  I  am 
Yahweh.  Thou  shalt  not  hate  they  brother  in  thine  heart :  thou 
shalt  surely  rebuke  thy  neighbor,  and  not  bear  sin  because  of 
him.  Thou  shalt  not  take  vengeance,  nor  bear  any  grudge 
against  the  children  of  thy  people,  but  thou  shalt  love  thy  neigh- 
bor as  thyself.     I  am  Yahweh." 

Deut.  xix.  15-20. 

"  One  witness  shall  not  rise  up  against  a  man  for  any  iniquity, 
or  for  any  sin,  in  any  sin  that  he  sinneth  :  at  the  mouth  of  two 
witnesses,  or  at  the  mouth  of  three  witnesses,  shall  a  matter  be 
established.  If  an  unrighteous  witness  rise  up  against  any  man 
to  testify  against  him  of  wrong-doing;  then  both  the  men,  be- 


228  APPENDIX 

tvveen  whom  the  controversy  is,  shall  stand  before  Yahweh,  before 
the  priests  and  the  judges  which  shall  be  in  those  days ;  and  the 
judges  shall  make  diligent  inquisition  :  and,  behold,  if  the  wit- 
ness be  a  false  witness,  and  hath  testified  falsely  against  his 
brother ;  then  shall  ye  do  unto  him  as  he  had  thought  to  do  unto 
his  brother:  so  shalt  thou  put  away  the  evil  from  the  midst  of 
thee.  And  those  which  remain  shall  hear,  and  fear,  and  shall 
henceforth  commit  no  more  any  such  evil  ii  the  midst  of  thee."' 

Laws  of  Kindness  (xxiii.  4,  5). 

(i).  If  thou  shalt  meet  an  ox  of  thine  enemy  or  his  ass  stray- 
ing, thou  shalt  bring  it  back  to  him. 

(2).  When  thou  shalt  see  the  ass  of  one  hating  thee  crouching 
under  its  burden,  thou  shalt  desist  from  forsaking  him.  Thou 
shalt  altogether  with  him  release  it. 

These  two  commands  are  certainly  out  of  place  here.  They 
interrupt  the  connection  between  the  previous  and  following 
pentades,  which  belong  together  as  making  up  a  decalogue  of 
justice.  They  are  the  fragments  of  a  pentade,  as  in  other  similar 
cases  which  we  have  considered.  We  find  the  same  law  in 
Deut.  xxii.  1-4,  in  somewhat  different  language  :  "  Thou  shalt  not 
see  thy  brother's  ox  or  his  sheep  driven  away  and  hide  thyself 

from  them;  thou  shalt  bring  them  back  to  thy 'brother 

Thou  shalt  not  see  thy  brother's  ass  or  his  ox  fallen  in  the  way 
and  hide  thyself  from  them ;  thou  shalt  lift  them  up  with  him." 
Not  considering  the  two  verses  of  Deut.  omitted  as  containing 
new  matter,  we  note  these  differences  :  Deut.  uses  (a)  "  brother  " 

for  the  "  enemy  "  of  our  code,  (b)  D^rnJ  =  driven  away,  for  nyn  = 

straying,   (c)  D^^2J   =  fallen,  for  ]>3"l  =  crouc/iifig,    lying  down 

tinder  a   burden,    (d)   D^pH  =  lift  np,  for  I'W  =  release.      iTSy  is 

used  in  common  by  the  codes. 

XIV. — Pentade  of  Justice  (xxiii.  6-9). 

(i).  Thou  shalt  not  wrest  the  judgment  of  thy  poor  in  his 
cause. 

(2).  From  a  lying  word  remove  far  off. 

(3).  And  an  innocent  and  righteous  man  do  not  slay,  for  I  will 
not  justify  a  wicked  man. 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT  229 

(4).  A  bribe  thou  shalt  not  take,  for  the  bribe  bh"nds  the  seeing, 
yea  it  perverts  the  words  of  the  righteous. 

(5).  A  stranger  thou  shait  not  oppress,  inasmuch  as  ye  know 
the  feelings  of  the  stranger  for  ye  were  strangers  in  the  land  of 
Eg}^pt. 

With  this  pentade  we  must  compare  Deut.  xvi.  18-20,  which  is 
similar  in  many  respects.  We  notice,  in  connection  with  (4), 
that  the  Deuteronomic  code  is  the  same  except  in  the  use  of 

D^D3n  ^ry  for  n^npD. 

The  curse  Deut.  xxvii.  25  corresponds  with  No.  3,  save  that 
every  word  is  different  except  "'pj.  "Cursed  be  he  that  taketh 
rew^ard  to  slay  an  innocent  peison.  And  all  the  people  shall  say 
Amen."     (Dt.  xxvii.  25.) 

XV.  and  XVI.  —  Two   Pentades  of  Feasts  and  Offtrings    (xxiii. 

10-19). 

(i).  Six  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  land  and  gather  its  produce, 
but  in  the  seventh  thou  shalt  release  it  and  when  thou  shalt  re- 
lease it,  the  poor  of  thy  people  shall  eat  it,  and  what  they  leave 
over,  the  wild  beasts  of  the  field  shall  eat.  So  shalt  thou  do  to 
thy  vineyard  and  to  thine  oliveyard. 

(2).  Six  days  shalt  thou  do  thy  work  and  on  the  seventh  day 
thou  shalt  keep  Sabbath  in  order  that  thine  ox  and  thine  ass 
may  rest  and  that  the  son  of  thy  slave-woman  and  the  stranger 
may  take  breath. 

(3).  And  in  all  that  I  have  said  unto  you,  take  ye  heed  and 
the  names  of  other  gods  ye  shall  not  record.  They  shall  not  be 
heard  in  thy  mouth. 

(4).  Three  times  thou  shalt  keep  feast  unto  me  in  the  year. 
The  feast  of  Mazzoth  thou  shalt  observe,  seven  days  thou  shalt 
eat  Mazzoth  according  as  I  have  commanded  thee,  at  the  season 
of  the  month  Abib.  For  in  it  thou  didst  go  forth  from  Egypt. 
And  they  shall  not  appear  in  my  presence  empty. 

(5).  And  the  feast  of  reaping  the  first  fruits  of  thy  work  which 
thou  shalt  sow  in  the  fields  (thou  shalt  keep). 

(6).  And  the  feast  of  ingathering  in  the  going  forth  of  the  year 
when  thou  gatherest  in  thy  work  from  the  field  (thou  shalt  keep). 
Three  times  in  the  year  shall  all  thy  males  appear  in  the  presence 
of  the  lord  Jehovah. 


230 


APPENDIX 


(7).  Thou  shall  not  offer  with  leaven  the  blood  of  my  peace- 
offering. 

(8).  The  fat  of  my  feast  shall  not  abide  until  morning. 

(9).  The  first  of  the  first  fruits  of  thy  land  thou  shalt  bring  to 
the  house  of  Jehovah  thy  God. 

(lo).  Thou  shalt  not  boil  a  kid  (which  is  still)  with  the  milk  of 
its  mother. 

This  decalogue  we  have  compared  with  that  of  the  little  book 
of  the  Covenant  in  eight  of  its  ten  sentences  of  command.  We 
shall  only  refer  here  to  the  remaining  two.  These  are  (i) 
The  Sabbath  year.  The  Sabbath  year  is  here  conceived  as  a 
year  of  the  release  of  the  land  (DCt/')  for  the  advantage  of  the 
poor,  who  are  to  have  the  free  use  of  all  that  grows  of  itself 
without  tillage  in  that  year.  This  year  has  already  been  men- 
tioned in  our  code  as  the  year  of  the  release  of  the  Hebrew 
slave  (xxi.  2).  The  law  of  the  Sabbath  year  is  more  fully  given 
in  connection  with  the  year  of  Jubilee  in  the  priests'  code, 
Lev.  XXV.  The  Deuteronomic  code  gives  it,  xv.  1-18,  under  the 
point  of  view  of  remission  of  debts  ntsD"'- 

3.  The  third  command  here  is  to  be  compared  with  the  third 
of  the  first  pentade  of  our  code,  xx,  24.  There  the  place  of  the 
altar  was  designated  by  the  recording  "I'^DTH  of  the  divine  name. 
Here  there  is  the  prohibition  of  the  recording  of  the  names  of 
other  gods.  This  we  take  to  be  attaching  them  to  altars  or 
places  of  worship,  using  "fDTri  in  the  same  sense  in  both  pas- 
sages. The  prohibition  from  speaking  their  names  is  different 
from  recording  their  names,  although  the  general  idea  is  the 
same.  It  reminds  us  of  the  words  of  the  Ephraimitic  prophet 
Hosea  li.  19  (17  English),  "For  1  will  take  away  the  names  of 
the  Baalim  out  of  her  mouth,  and  they  shall  no  more  be  men- 
tioned by  their  name." 

The  co7icIuding  Exhortation  and  Promises  (xxiii.  20-33). 

"  Behold  I  am  about  to  send  a  Malakh  before  thee  to  keep 
thee  in  the  way  and  to  bring  thee  unto  the  place  which  I  have 
prepared.  Take  heed  of  his  presence  and  hearken  to  his  voice. 
Do  not  rebel  against  him,  for  he  will  not  forgive  your  transgres- 
sion, for  my  name  is  in  his  midst.  On  the  contrary  attentively 
hearken  to  his  voice  and  do  all  that  I  shall  speak,  and  I  will  be 


THE  GREATER  BOOK  OF  THE  COVENANT      231 

an  enemy  of  thine  enemies  and  an  adversary  of  thy  adversaries. 
For  my  Malakh  will  go  before  thee  and  bring  thee  unto  the 
Amorites  and  the  Hittites  and  the  Perizzites  and  the  Canaanites 
and  the  Hivvites  and  the  Jebusites,  and  I  will  destroy  them.  Thou 
shalt  not  worship  their  gods  and  thou  shalt  not  be  led  to  serve 
them,  and  thou  shalt  not  do  according  to  their  doings.  But  thou 
shalt  altogether  tear  down  and  break  in  pieces  their  Mazzeboth.  If 
ye  shall  serve  Jehovah  your  God,  He  will  bless  thy  bread  and  thy 
water,  and  I  will  remove  sickness  from  thy  midst.  A  barren  and 
sterile  one  shall  not  be  in  thy  land.  The  numbers  of  thy  days  I 
will  fill  full.  My  fear  I  will  send  before  thee  and  I  will  discomfit 
all  the  peoples  against  whom  thou  shalt  come  and  I  will  give  all 
thine  enemies  unto  thee  as  to  their  neck,  and  I  will  send  the 
hornet  before  thee  and  I  will  expel  the  Hivvite,  the  Canaanite 
and  the  Hittite  from  before  thee.  I  will  not  drive  them  out  from 
thy  presence  in  one  year,  lest  the  land  become  desolate  and  the 
wild  beasts  of  the  field  multiply  against  thee.  Little  by  little  I 
will  drive  them  from  thy  presence  until  that  thou  be  fruitful 
and  inherit  the  land  and  I  set  thy  boundary  from  the  Red  sea  even 
unto  the  sea  of  the  Philistines  and  from  the  wilderness  unto  the 
river.  For  I  will  give  into  your  hand  the  inhabitants  of  the  land 
and  thou  shalt  drive  them  from  thy  presence.  Thou  shalt  not 
conclude  a  covenant  with  them  and  their  gods.  They  shall  not 
dwell  in  thy  land  lest  they  cause  thee  to  sin  against  me  in  that 
thou  wilt  serve  their  gods,  for  it  will  become  a  snare  unto  thee." 
These  exhortations  and  promises  at  the  conclusion  of  this 
book  of  the  Covenant  are  to  be  compared  with  the  brief  ones  in 
the  introduction  to  the  little  book  of  the  Covenant,  xxxiv.  11-13, 
with  the  fuller  conclusion  of  the  code  of  Holiness,  Lev.  xxvi., 
and  the  blessings  and  curses  of  the  Deuteronomic  code,  Deut. 
xxvii.-xxx.  The  peculiarity  of  our  code  as  distinguished  from 
these  others  in  this  section  is  the  emphasis  laid  upon  the  Malakh, 
"ijxijC     the    angel    of    the    divine    presence,    the     Theophatiic 

angel.  The  code  of  Holiness  uses  instead  of  the  Theophany, 
"And  I  will  give  my  tabernacle  in  your  midst  and  I  myself  will 
not  reject  you,  and  I  will  walk  about  in  your  midst  and  become 
your  God  and  ye  shall  become  my  people  "  (Lev.  xxvi,  11  scq^. 

Reviewing  our  arrangement  of  the  laws  we  observe  that  we 
have  found  six  complete  decalogues,  (i)  xxi.  6-1 1,  of  Hebrew 


232  APPENDIX 

slaves;  (2)  xxi.  12-25,  ^^  deeds  of  violence;  (3)  xxi.  26-37,  of 
lesser  injuries;  (4)  xxii.  6-16,  of  breaches  of  trust;  (5)  xxiii.  [-3, 
6-9,  of  justice;  (6)  xxiii.  10-19,  of  feasts  and  offerings.  We 
have  also  found  /o'/zr  separate  pentades,  (i)  xxii.  23-26,  of  wor- 
ship; (2)  xxii.  1-5,  of  theft  and  damages;  (3)  xxii.  20-26,  of 
treatment  of  poor  and  weak ;  (4)  xxii.  27-29,  of  reverence  and 
first  fruits.  We  have  also  observed  several  remnants  of  pentades 
and  decalogues.  We  suppose  that  we  have  fragments  of  ///r<?<? 
decalogues,  (i)  of  Magic  and  Idolatry,  in  ^wo  pentades,  xxii.  17 
and  19  ;  (2)  of  sexual  laws,  xxii.  18  ;  (3)  of  laws  of  purity,  xxii.  30; 
and  /wo  pentades,  (i)  of  kindness,  xxiii.  4-5,  and  (2)  cursing  of  par- 
ents, xxi.  7.  In  all  we  would  have  nine  decalogues  and  six  pen- 
tades. If  the  pentades  could  be  combined  in  decalogues  we  would 
have  twelve  decalogues.  If  this  could  be  accomplished  we  might 
conclude  that  these  were  written  upon  the  twelve  n3i*0  which 

Moses  built  in  connection  with  the  altar  (Ex.  xxiv.  4)  for  which 
we  can  find  no  use  in  the  historical  narrative.  If  this  were  so, 
we  would  have  an  analogy  with  the  case  of  the  Deuteronomic 
code  which  was  written  upon  stones  in  connection  with  the  altar 
erected  on  Ebal,  after  the  entrance  into  the  holy  land,  Deut. 
xxvii.  8;  Josh.  viii.  30  seg^.  In  both  cases  the  code  would  then 
have  been  written  on  stones  as  well  as  in  books. 


VII. 


VARIATIONS  OF  D   AND   H. 


The  following  specimens  of  variation  between  D  and  H  will 
suffice : 


(i).  Law  against  Mixtures. 


(i).  "  Thou  shalt  not  sow  thy 
vineyard  with  two  kinds  of  seed: 
lest  the  whole  fruit  be  forfeited, 
the  seed  which  thou  hast  sown 
and  the  increase  of  the  vine- 
yard. 

(2).  Thou  shalt  not  plow  with 
an  ox  and  an  ass  together. 

(3).  Thou  shalt  not  wear  a 
mingled  stuff,  wool  and  linen 
together."     (Deut.xxii.9-11. 


H. 


(2).  "  Thou  shalt  not  let  thy 
cattle  gender  with  a  diverse 
kind  : 

(i).  thou  shalt  not  sow  thy 
field  with  two  kinds  of  seed  : 

(3).  neither  shall  there  come 
upon  [thee  a  garment  of  two 
kinds  of  stuff  mingled  to- 
gether."    (Lev.  xix.  19.) 


(I).  D  uses  "  vineyard,"  H  "field."  The  forfeit  of  seed  and  in- 
crease is  peculiar  to  D. 

(2).  D  uses  "plow,"  H  "gender";  D  "  ox  and  ass,"  H  "cat- 
tle of  diverse  kind." 

(3).  D  uses  "wool  and  linen,"  H  "two  kinds  of  stuff";  D 
"thou  shalt  not  wear,"  H  "neither  shall  there  come  upon  thee  a 
garment." 

On  the  whole  H  generalizes  the  more  specific  commands  of 
D,  and  transposes  i  and  2  of  D. 

(233) 


234: 


APPENDIX 


(2).  Law  against  Gleaning. 


D. 


(1),  "When  thou  reapest  thine 
harvest  in  thy  field,  and  hast 
forgot  a  sheaf  in  the  field,  thou 
shalt  not  go  again  to  fetch  it : 
it  shall  be  for  the  stranger,  for 
the  fatherless,  and  for  the 
widow:  that  Yahweh  thy  God 
may  bless  thee  in  all  the  work 
of  thine  hands. 

(2).  When  thou  beatest  thine 
olive  tree,  thou  shalt  not  go 
over  the  boughs  again  :  it  shall 
be  for  the  stranger,  for  the 
fatherless,  and  for  the  widow. 

(3).  When  thou  gatherest  the 
grapes  of  thy  vineyard,  thou 
shalt  not  glean  it  after  thee  :  it 
shall  be  for  the  stranger,  for  the 
fatherless,  and  for  the  widow. 
And  thou  shalt  remember  that 
thou  wast  a  bondman  in  the 
land  of  Egypt :  therefore  I  com- 
mand thee  to  do  this  thing." 
(Deut.  xxiv.  19-22.) 


H. 


(i).  "And  when  ye  reap  the 
harvest  of  your  land,  thou  shalt 
not  wholly  reap  the  corners  of 
thy  field,  neither  shalt  thou 
gather  the  gleaning  of  thy  har- 
vest. 

(3).  And  thou  shalt  not  glean 
thy  vineyard,  neither  shalt  thou 
gather  the  fallen  fruit  of  thy 
vineyard  ;  thou  shalt  leave  them 
for  the  poor  and  for  the  stranger: 
I  am  Yahweh  your  God."  (Lev. 
xix.  9-10.) 

(i).  "  And  when  ye  reap  the 
harvest  of  your  land,  thou  shalt 
not  wholly  reap  the  corners  of 
thy  field,  neither  shalt  thou 
gather  the  gleaning  of  thy  har- 
vest :  thou  shalt  leave  them  for 
the  poor  and  for  the  stranger : 
I  am  Yahweh  your  God."  (Lev. 
xxiii.  22.) 


In  Lev.  xxiii.  22  P  gives  a  literal  extract  from  Lev.  xix.  9,  lob 
of  H.     H  omits  the  second  command  of  D. 

(i).  D  prohibits  going  to  the  field  for  a  forgotten  sheaf;  H 
forbids  reaping  the  corners  and  also  gleaning,  and  so  is  more 
comprehensive. 

(3).  D  forbids  the  gleaning  of  the  vineyard  ;  H  prohibits  both 
gleaning  and  gathering  the  fallen  fruit :  and  so  gives  an  addi- 
tional feature. 

The  motives  of  D  are,  that  "  Yahweh  thy  God  may  bless 
thee,"  and  that  the  left  fruit  may  be  for  "  the  stranger,  the 
fatherless  and  the  widow."    The  motives  of  H  are,  "  I  am  Yah- 


VARIATIONS  OF   D  AND   11 


235 


weh  your  God,"  and  that  the  left  fruit  may  be  for  "the  poor 
and  the  stranger." 

H  here  seems  to  indicate  by  his  reference  to  "the  poor,"   a 
diflferent  situation  and  a  later  conception  from  D. 

(3).  Law  of  Weights  atid  Measures. 
D.  H. 


(i).  "Thou  shalt  not  have  in 
thy  bag  divers  stones,  a  great 
and  a  small. 

(2).  Thou  shalt  not  have  in 
thine  house  divers  ephahs,  a 
great  and  a  small.  A  perfect 
and  just  stone  shalt  thou  have  : 
a  perfect  and  just  ephah  shalt 
thou  have  :  that  thy  days  may 
be  long  upon  the  land  which 
Yah  weh  thy  God  giveth  thee." 
(Deut.  XXV.  13-15.) 


"  Ye  shall  do  no  unrighteous- 
ness in  judgment,  in  meteyard, 
in  weight,  or  in  measure.  Just 
balances,  just  stones,  a  just 
ephah,  and  a  just  hin,  shall  ye 
have  :  I  am  Yahweh  your  God, 
which  brought  you  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt."  (Lev.  xix. 
35-36.) 


D  prohibits  (i)  divers  stones  (jnN)  in  the  bag  "a  great  and 
a  small,"  and  prescribes  "  a  perfect  and  just  stone."  H  uses  'wi- 
stead  i)ptr)p  iveight  and  "just  stones,"  and  adds  "just  bal- 
ances." 

(2).  D  prohibits  divers  ephahs  "  a  great  and  a  small,"  and  pre- 
scribes a  "perfect  and  just  ephah."  But  H  uses  the  late  word 
rri^t^p  measure  (elsewhere  only  Ez.  iv.  u,  16  ;  i  C.  xxiii.  29),  and 
besides  a  "just  ephah,"  a  "just  hin." 

H  only  uses  iTH^   meteyard,  a  measure    not  contemplated    in 

D.     It  seems  evident  that  H  is  a  later  enlargement  and  gen- 
eralization of  D. 


VIII. 


THE   SEVERAL   REPRESENTATIONS   OF  THE  THEOPHANY. 


We  shall  simply  place  four  accounts  of  theophanies  to  Moses, 
side  by  side,  and  then  two  accounts  of  theophanies  to  represent- 
atives of  the  people  and  to  the  people.  The  differences  are 
evident.  In  E  Moses  sees  God's  face  and  form  habitually.  In  J 
he  is  not  permitted  to  see  God's  face,  but  only  His  back  parts, 
and  that  as  the  greatest  privilege  of  his  life.  In  D  the  prohibi- 
tion of  making  images  is  based  on  the  fact  that  the  people 
had  seen  no  form  of  God  in  the  theophany,  but  only  heard 
His  voice ;  whereas  in  E,  the  elders  see  God  standing  on  a  plat- 
form, and  eat  and  drink  in  His  presence.  In  P  the  glory  of  the 
theophanies  lights  up  the  face  of  Moses  every  time  he  enters  into 
the  presence  of  the  glory.  Nothing  of  the  kind  appears  in  any 
of  the  other  narratives.  These  representations  are  sufficiently 
difficult  to  harmonize  in  different  documents  of  later  writers 
depending  on  different  sources  of  information.  How  could 
Moses  give  such  various  accounts  of  what  he  himself  had  seen 
and  heard  } 


"  Now  Moses  used  to  take  the 
tent  and  to  pitch  it  without  the 
camp,  afar  off  from  the  camp  ; 
and  call  it  The  tent  of  meeting. 
And  it  used  to  be,  that  every 
one  which  sought  the  Lord  went 
out  unto  the  tent  of  meeting, 
which  was  without  the  camp. 
And  it  used  to  be,  when  Moses 
(236) 


J- 

"And  he  said.  Shew  me,  I 
pray  thee,  thy  glory  :  And  he 
said,  I  will  make  all  my  good- 
ness pass  before  thee,  and  pro- 
claim the  name  of  Yahweh  be- 
fore thee  ;  and  I  will  be  gracious 
to  whom  1  will  be  gracious,  and 
will  be  compassionate  to  whom 
I  will  be  compassionate.     And 


THE   SEVERAL   REPRESENTATIONS 


237 


went  out  unto  the  Tent,  that  all 
the  people  rose  up,  and  stood, 
every  man  at  his  tent  door,  and 
looked  after  Moses,  until  he  was 
gone  into  the  Tent.  And  it 
used  to  be,  when  Moses  entered 
into  the  Tent,  the  pillar  of  cloud 
descended,  and  stood  at  the 
door  of  the  Tent :  and  spake 
with  Moses.  And  all  the  people 
used  to  see  the  pillar  of  cloud 
standing  at  the  door  of  the 
Tent :  and  all  the  people  rose 
up  and  worshipped,  every 
man  at  his  tent  door.  And 
Yahweh  used  to  speak  unto 
Moses  face  unto  face,  as  a  man 
speaketh  unto  his  friend.  And 
he  used  to  turn  again  into  the 
camp  :  but  his  minister  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Nun,  a  young  man, 
departed  not  out  of  the  Tent." 
(Ex.  xxxiii.  7-1 1.) 
E. 
"  If  one  is  to  be  your  prophet, 
I,  Yahweh,  in  the  vision  make 
myself  known  to  him ;  in  a 
dream  I  speak  with  him.  Not 
so  my  servant  Moses,  with  all 
my  house  he  is  entrusted,  mouth 
to  mouth  I  speak  with  him,  in 
an  appearance  without  riddles  ; 
and  the  form  of  Yahweh  he  be- 
holds. Why  then  do  ye  not  fear 
to  speak  against  my  servant 
Moses  }  "     (Num.  xii.  6-8.) 


he  said.  Thou  canst  not  see  my 
face:  for  mankind  shall  not  see 
me  and  live.  And  Yahweh 
said,  Behold,  there  is  a  place  by 
me,  and  thou  shalt  stand  upon 
the  rock  :  and  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  while  my  glory  passeth  by, 
that  I  will  put  thee  in  a  cleft  of 
the  rock,  and  will  cover  thee 
with  my  hand  until  I  have 
passed  by  ;  and  I  will  takeaway 
mine  hand,  and  thou  shalt  see 
my  back  :  but  my  face  shall  not 
be  seen."     (Ex.  xxxiii.  18-23.) 


P. 

"  And  when  Moses  had  done 
speaking  with  them,  he  put  a 
veil  on  his  face.  And  when 
Moses  went  in  before  Yahweh  to 
speak  with  him,  he  used  to  take 
the  veil  off,  until  he  came  out ; 
and  he  used  to  come  out,  and 
speak  unto  the  children  of 
Israel  that  which  he  was  com- 
manded ;  and  the  children  of 
Israel  used  to  see  the  face  of 
Moses,  that  the  skin  of  Moses' 
face  shone  :  and  Moses  used  to 
put  the  veil  upon  his  face  again, 
until  he  went  in  to  speak  with 
him."     (Ex.  xxxiv.  33-35.) 


238 


APPENDIX 


"  Then  went  up  Moses,  and 
Aaron,  Nadab,  and  Abihu,  and 
seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel  : 
and  they  saw  the  God  of  Israel ; 
and  there  was  under  his  feet  as 
it  were  a  paved  work  of  sapphire 
stone,  and  as  it  were  the  very 
heaven  for  clearness.  And  upon 
the  nobles  of  the  children  of 
Israel  he  laid  not  his  hand  :  and 
they  beheld  God,  and  did  eat 
and  drink."     (Ex.  xxiv.  9-1 1.) 


D. 

"And  Yahweh  spake  unto  you 
out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire : 
ye  heard  the  voice  of  words, 
but  ye  saw  no  form  ;  only  (ye 
heard)  a  voice.  And  he  de- 
clared unto  you  his  covenant, 
which  he  commanded  you  to 
perform,  even  the  ten  command- 
ments  Take  ye  therefore 

good  heed  unto  yourselves;  for 
ye  saw  no  manner  of  form  on 
the  day  that  Yahweh  spake  unto 
you  in  Horeb  out  of  the  midst 
of  the  fire  :  lest  ye  corrupt  your- 
selves, and  make  you  a  graven 
image  in  the  form  of  any  figure 
(etc.)"     (Deut.  iv.  12-16.) 


< 


INDEX   OF   NAMES   AND   TOPICS. 


AbenEzra 36 

Acts  of  violence,  Pentadeof..  211  seq. 

Addis,  W.  E 144 

Astruc,   Jean,   46,  47,   49,  52,  56,  143 

Aug-ustine  33 

Authorship,  special  indications  of. .     38 

Bacox,  B.  W 75 

Bartlett,  E.  T 144 

Basil ::,T, 

Bathgen,  F.  W 143 

Batten,  L.  W 144 

Raudissin,  \V.    W.,    130,   132-134,  143 

Bauer,  G.  L 53 

Baur,  Ferd 162 

Beecher,  W.J 130 

Bellarmin 33 

Bertheau,  E 211 

Bissell,  E.  C 130,  137 

Bleek,  Ferd 61 

Bohmer,  E 64 

Breaches  of  trust,  decalogue  of.  .221  seg. 

Bredenkamp,  C 143 

Brown,  Francis 47,  130,  144 

Brown,  C.  R 144 

Bruston,  C 143 

Budde,  K 135,  143 

Buhl,  F 143 

Calmet 44,  56,  59 

Calvin 34.  99,  209 

Canus 35 

CarlsUdt 36,  41 

Carpenter,  J.  E 144 

Carpnov,  J.  G 42,  43,  62 

Carriere,  A 143 

Castelli,  David 144 

Cheyne,  T.  K 144 


Chrysostom 33 

Clark,  Adam 43 

Clementine  Homilies 33 

Clement  of  Alexandria 33 

Clericus 41 

Codes;  of  D.,  8  seg.,  81  seg.,  99 
s.g.,  no  seg.,  133  •^^^'m  i57  seg., 
of  E.,  loi  seg.,  122,  132  seg.,  156 
seg.\  of  H.,  loi  seg.,  127  seg., 
i33-f^5'-»  ^Sl  seg.\  of  J„  loi  seg., 
132  seg.,  156  seg. ;  of  P.,  95  seg., 
no  seg.,  132  seg.,  157  seg.\  of 
Sinai,  131  seg. 

Colenso 93 

Concubines,  Hebrew  slave,  pentade 

of 216  seg. 

Cornill,  C  H 134,  135,  143 

Covenant,  Greater  Book  of,  7,  18 
seg.,  100,  156,  158,  185,  189,  211 
seg.\  little  Book  of,  7,  100,  156, 

184,  189,  211  seg. 
Criticism,  Higher,  what  is  it,  t  seg.; 
problems  of,    2  seg.;    evidences 
used  by,  4  seg. ;  obstacles  to,  145  ; 

Lower. i 

Curtis,  E.  L 144 

Curtiss,  S.  Ives  130,  144 

D.,  68  ;  style  of 75 

Darmstetter,  J 144 

Davidson,  A.  B 129 

"  Samuel 66 

Davison,  W.  T 144 

Dealings  with  the  weak  and  poor, 

pentade  of 224  seg. 

Decalogues,  of  J.,  189  j-^^.;  of  the 

Tables 189  seg. 

De  La  Saussaye,  Chautepie 144 

'239) 


240 


INDEX   OF   NAMES   AND   TOPICS 


Delitzsch,  Franz. . .   14,  23,  67,  130,  132 

"  Fred   143 

Deuteronomy,    date    of,    81    seg.\ 

style  of 168  seg. 

De  Wette,  60,  62,  65,  81,  92,  100, 

107,  132 

Diatessaron,  Tatian's  138  seg. 

Dillmann,  August,  63,  69,  88,  130, 

T31,  132,  134,  143,  153.  218 

Dods,  Marcus 212 

Douglas,  George 129,  130 

Drechsler 62 

Driver,  S.  R.,  47,  69,  70,  83,  85, 

88,  135,  143,  144,  151,  157,  168 

Drummond,  James 144 

DuiT,  A 144 

Duhm,  B 93,  143 

E.,  68  ;  style  of 74 

Eichhorn,  J.  G.,  49,  50,  51,  52,  53, 

56,  57,  58,  60,  99,  100,  107,  142 
Ewald,  H 61,  63,  64,  132,  211,  212 

Feast  of  Passover,  106,  204  seg.\ 
of  unleavened  bread,  106,  195 
seq.\  of  weeks,  106,  199  seq.\ 
of  harvest,  106,  199  seg.;  of  in- 
gathering,    106,     201     seg.\    of 

booths  (tabernacles) 106,  201  seg. 

Feasts  and  offerings,  pentades  of, 

229  seg. 

Fleury,  Abbe 44 

Floigl,  Victor 144 

Francois,  Abbe  L 44 

Fulda,  F,  C 53 

Gabler,  J.  G 52 

Gast,  F.  A 130,  144 

Gautier,  Lucien 143 

Geddes,  Alex...  56,  57,  58,  60,  61, 

107,  137 

George 90,  93 

Giesebrecht,  F 94,  143 

Gleaning,  law  against 234 

Gleig,  Bishop 44 

Gore,  Charles 29 

Graf,  Karl  H 91,  92,  127 


Graves ^3 

Green,  W.  H.  74,  no,  113,  117,  130,  142 

Gregory 35 

Grill,  J 143 

Guthe,  H 143 

H.,  style  of i-]2  seg. 

Harper,  \V.  R 130,  144 

Hartmann,  A.  T 58 

Hasse,  G 53 

Haupt,  Paul 144 

Havernick,  A.  C 62 

Heidegger 42,  62 

Hengstenberg,  E.  W 62,  63 

Hexateuch,  term  explained i 

Hirsch,  E.  G T44 

Hobbes,  T 36,  41 

Hodge,  A.  A 130 

Hommel,   Fritz 143 

Home,  T.  H 54,  55,  56,  58,  118 

Horst,  L 127 

Huet,  P 42 

Hupfeld,  H 48,  63,  64 

Hypotheses,  documentary,  46  seg.\ 
fragmentary,  57  seg.\  supple- 
mentary,  60  seg.\  development, 

go  seg.,  129  seg. 

ILGEN,  C.  D 48,  53,  63 

Injuries,  pentade  of 219  seg. 

Irenjeus 33 

Israel,    religious    development  of, 

124  seg. 

J.,   68  ;  style  of 74 

Jahn 53,  56 

Jasher,  book  of 12,  13.  95 

Jastrow,  M 144 

Jerome 33 

Jerusalem 49,  52 

Julicher,  A 143 

Junilius 33,  3 1 

Justice,  pentade  of 228  seg. 

Kalisch,  M 93 

I  Kamphausen,  A 143 

I  Kautzsch,  E 69,  75,  94,  143 


INDEX  OF   NAMES  AND   TOPICS 


241 


Kayser,  A 93,  127 

Keil,  F 62,  63 

Kellner,  M.  L 144 

Kennedy 144 

Kindness,  laws  of 228 

Kirkpatrick,  A.  T 144 

Kitlel,   R 130,  132,  143 

Kleinert,  P 67,  143 

Klostermann,  A 127,  143,  152 

Knappert,  J 144 

Knobel,  A 64,  212 

Kohler,  A 1 43 

Konig;,  E 94,  95,  143 

Kuenen,  A 92,  93,  94,  95,  115. 

128,  131,  143,  162 
Kurtz,  J.  H 62,  67 

Ladd,  G.  T 144 

Lange,  J.  P 67 

Language,  argfument  from. ...  69  seq. 

Law  Book  of  Josiah 15  seq. 

Lemme,  L 143 

Lenormant,  F 94,  95 

Lotz,  W 144 

Luther 34,  209 

Lyon,  D.  G 144 

IMaresius^ 42 

Marsh,   Bishop 54,  55,  56,  58,  118 

Marti,   K 143 

Masius  36,  42 

Merx,  A 60,  143 

MichaeHs,  J.  D 52,  57 

Mishna 32 

Mitchell,  A.  F 35 

Mixtures,  law  against 233 

Montet,  E 143 

"       F 143 

Moore,  G.  F 130,  138,  140,  144 

Mozley 54 

Myer,  E 143 

Neander,  a 162 

Noldeke,  T 65,  91,  143 

Nowack,  W 143 

Oetti  I,  S 143 

Oort,  H  144 


Orelli,  K.  von 143 

Osgood,  H 130,  137,  138 

Ottmar  (Nachtigall) 53 

P.,  68  ;  style  of 74,  174  seq. 

Patton,  F.  L 130 

Paul  of  Nisibis 33 

Pentateuch,  term  explained i 

Peters,  J    P 130,  144 

Perowne,  J.  J.  S 66,  141 

Peyrerius 36,  39 

Piscator 209 

Plagues,  Egyptian,  -j'&seq.^  XA,'&seq.^  188 
Poems,  Pentameter,  75  seq.\  trim- 
eter    IS  seq. 

Poole,    Matthew 35,  54 

Popper,  J 91,  92 

Prideaux 43,  44 

Purity,  laws  of 226  seq. 

Ranke,  F.  H 61 

Renan,  E 162 

Reuss,  E.,  90,  91,  93,  94,   95,  96, 
98,  100,  107,  115,   118,  125,  126, 
128,  129,  130,  131,  132,  134,  143,  162 
Reverence  and  offerings,   pentade 

of 225  seq. 

Reville,  A. 143 

Riehm,  E  .. .   81,  82,  83,  84,  91,  99,  100 

Robertson,  J 144 

Robinson,  Edward 59 

Roediger 63 

Rosenmuller 53,  56 

Ryle,  H.  E 16,  144 

Ryssel 143 

SCHRADER,  E 65,  143 

Schultz,  H 9,  94,  143 

Schurer,   E 143 

Semler 41 

Sharp,  S 94 

Siegfried,  C 94,  143 

Simon,  R 40,  41,  42,  49,  75 

Slave,    Hebrew,     rights    of,    pen- 
tade of 215  seq. 

Smend,  R  94,  143 

Smith,  G.  A 130,  144 


212 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  AND  TOPICS 


Smith,  H.  P 130,144 

"      W.  R 94,  96,  129,  144 

Socin,  A 75,  143 

Spinoza,  B.  de 36,  39,  40,  41,  42 

Spurrell,  G.J 144 

Stade,  B 94,  143 

Stahelin,  J.J 63 

Stanley,  A.  P 66 

Stanton,  V.  H 144 

Stickel,  J.G 143 

Strack,  H.  L 63,  130,  143 

Strauss,  D 162 

Tatian 138,  141 

Ten  words,  genesis  of 181  seq. 

Teitullian 33 

Testimony,  pentade  of 227  seq. 

Theft  and   Damage  to    property, 

pentade  of 221 

Theodoret 33 

Theophany,  several  representations 

of 146,  236  seq. 

Thorah,  the  book  of 8,  14,  16,  17 

Tiele,  C.  P 144 


Toy,  C-  H 94,  96,  144 

Tuch,  F 63 

Valeton,  J.  J.  P 144 

Van  Dale,  A 41 

Vater,  J.  S 57,  58,  61,  137 

Vatke,  W 90,  93,  94 

Venies,  M 94,  144 

Vitringa 44 

Volck,  W 143 

Vuilleumier,  H 143 

Wars  of  Yahweh,  book  of 12,  95 

Weights  and  measures 235 

Wellhausen,  J...  94,  95,  115,  128, 

129,  137,  143,  162 

Whitehouse,  O.  C 144 

Wildeboer,  G 144 

Witsius,  H 43 

Worship,  pentade  of 212  seq. 

Wright,  C.  H.  H 144 

Yahweh.  revelation  of  the  name 
of 46  seq. ,  165  seq. 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS  * 


Genesis. 

i 52,  75 

i.  i-ii.  3 50 

i.  2 151 

i.  25 70 

ii 75 

ii.  4-iii.  24 50 

ii.  1 73 

ii.  2 186 

ii-2,  3 183,  185,  195 

ii-  7 73,  151 

ii.  9  72 

V.  1-28,  30-32 50 

V.  22,  24 166 

vi.  3 151 

vi .  9-22 50 

vi.  9,  II ,,   166 

vi.  20 70 

vii.  20-23 46 

vii.  22 73 

viii.  1-4,  13-19 50 

viii.  20 loi 

ix.  1-17 SO,  149 

ix.  13  ^^^ T95 

ix.  28,  29 50 

xi .  10-26,  32 50 

xii.  1-3   79 

xii.  4,  5  di's 50 

xii.  6 36,44,  71 

xii.  7,  8  loi 

xii.  10-20 78 

xii.  II .  72 

xiii.  6,  II,  12  d is 50 

xiii.  7 71 


Genesis. 

xiii.  18 loi 

xiv 46,50,  135 

xiv.  14 36,     44 

XV.  2,  8 49 

XV.  4,  5 79 

XV.  7  166 

XV.  16 71 

XV.  18     149 

xvi.  3,  15,  16  di's 50 

xvii 149,  195 

xvii.  1-8 79 

xvii.  1-27 50 

xvii.  18 166 

xix.  29 50 

xix.  29-38 46 

XX.  1-13 78 

XX.  4,  13 49 

XX.  9 72 

XX.  16 217 

xxi.  2-5 50 

xxi.  22,  32 73 

xxii.  9 loi 

xxii.  14 38,42,     44 

xxii .  15-18 79 

xxii.  20-24.. 46 

xxiii.  1-20 50 

xxiii.  4 71,   166 

xxiv.  3,  37 71 

xxiv.  x6 72 

XXV.  6 72 

XXV.  7-11,  i-j,  20,  26  dts 50 

XXV.  12-18 46 

xxvi.  6-11 78 


*  This  Index  does  not  include  the  Word   Lists  of  Canon  Driver,  for  which  see  pp. 
168-180. 

(243) 


244 


IJsDEX   OF  TEXTS 


Genesis. 

xxvi.  7 72 

xxvi,  25 loi 

xxvi.  26 73 

xxvi.  34,  35 46,  50 

xxvii.  20  48 

xxviii.  1-9 50 

xxviii.  6-9 46 

xxviii.  12-15 146 

xxviii.  13,  21 166 

xxix.  17 72 

xxxi.  1 152 

xxxi.  20  71 

xxxi.  28 73 

xxxi.  39 105 

xxxi.  51 72 

xxxiii.  i8-xxxiv.  31 50 

xxxiii.  14 72 

xxxiii.  20 loi 

xxxiv 46 

xxxiv.  30 71 

XXXV.  28-xxxvi 46 

XXXV.  7 49,  lOI 

xxxv.  14 105 

xxxvi 37,  50 

xxxvi.  3 44 

xxxvi.  31 ,,    ..37,42,  43 

xxxvii.  5-10 146 

xxxix.  1,6 72 

xl.  5-8 146 

xli.  1-15 146 

xli.  2,  4 72 

xli.  38 150 

xlii.  9 146 

xliii.  7,  27,  28 72 

xi:ii.  14 166 

xlv.  3,  26,  28 72 

xlv.  T3 152 

xlvi.  2,  30 72 

xlvi.  3 73 

xlviii.  16 15s 

xlviii.  22 7T 

xlix 95 

xlix.  1-27 50 

xlix.  6 152 

xlix.  25 166 

1.  20 73 


Exodus. 

i -ii 52 

».  4 73 

ii.  24 166 

iii   48 

iii.  5   152 

iii.  12-15 165 

'ii.  19 73,  147 

iii .  20 147 

iv.  1-9  bis 147 

iv.  14 T58 

iv.  18 72 

iv.  20 39 

iv.  21 154 

vi 47,  48 

vi.2-3 47 

vi.  2-7 165 

vi.  4  149 

vi.  6 155 

vii.  3,  13,  14,  22 154 

vii.  4-5,  9,  ig-20 147 

vii.  17 147,  166 

viii.  1-3,  12-13,  17-19 147 

viii.  II,  28 154 

viii.  T1-15,  16-28 78 

viii.  15 147,  154 

viii.  18 166 

ix.  1-7 78,  188 

ix.  3,  15.  23 147 

ix.  7,  12,  34,  35 154 

ix.  8-T2 78,148,  188 

X.  I,  20,  27 154 

X.  2 166 

x.  i3*e>,  19 147 

xi.  10 154 

xii 205 

xii.-xiii   74 

xii.  1-28,  43-51 91 

xii.  2,  18 70 

xii.  3-11,  21-27,  43-46 206 

xiii.  2,  II  seg 226 

xiii.  3,  9,  14 147 

xiii.  4 70 

xiii.  12-13 198 

xiv.  4,  8,  17 154 

xiv.  16,  21 147 

XV 95 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


246 


Exodus. 

XV,  4 72 

XV.  II 152 

XV.  13  152,  155 

XV.  17 ..  49 

XV.  25 147 

XV.  26 48,  166 

xvi   185 

xvi.  25-30 185 

xvi,  27-30 147 

xvi.  35 37,  43,  44 

xvii 79 

xvii.  8-13 147 

xvii.  14 10 

xvii,  15 loi 

xviii 157 

xviii,  2  seq , ,  39 

xviii.  12 158 

xviii.  18 73 

xix.  5,  6,  22 104 

xix.  6 152 

xix.  13 72 

XX 183,  189 

xx.-xxiii t8,  19,  23,  100,  136,  158 

xx.-xxiv 99 

XX.  1-17  bis 189 

XX.  3 49,  190 

XX.  3-7,  3-17 211 

XX.  4-6,  5 191 

XX.  4,  23  ^z',y 190 

XX.  6 155 

XX.  8 192 

XX.  9,  10 73,  193 

XX.  II 194 

XX,  22-26 6,211  bis 

XX.  23-26 212 

XX.  24 230 

XX.   24-26 102,   159,  212 

Xxi,   28-XXii.    16,    17-30 211 

xxi,  3^-xxii.  5 212 

xxi.-xxiii 6 

xxi.-xxiii.  19 211 

xxi.  I,  2 -I I  biSy  12-16,  17,  T2-27.  .  211 

xxi,  2 230 

xxi.  2-6 215 

xxi,  6-1 1 , 231 

xxi.  7 232 


Exodus. 

,  7-11 216 

.  i2-r6 217 

.  12-25  219,  232 

,  14 102 

.  T5 218 

.  17 218,  225 

.  18-25 219 

,  18-32 212 

.  26-37 220,  232 

i.  1-5 221,  232 

i.  6-16 212,221,  232 

i,  7,  10. 72 

i.  17-19 222 

i.  17-30 212 

i.  17,  19;  18,23-26,30 232 

i.  20-26 224,  232 

i.  26 217 

i,  27-29 219,  225,  232 

i    28 198 

i,  28-29 197 

i,  29 209 

i.  29-31   159 

i.  30 226 

i.  31 106 

ii.  1-3 227,  232 

ii,  1-8,9-13,26-43  211 

ii.  1-9 212 

ii.  4-5 212,  228,  232 

ii.  6-9 228,  232 

ii.  10,  II 121 

ii,  10-17 106 

il,  10-19 212,  215,  229,  232 

ii,  12 186,  192,  194 

ii.  14-19 159,  211 

ii.  14.  17 203 

ii.  '5 19,  70,  195,  196,  198 

ii.  16 199,  201 

\\.  i2>bis 49,  204 

ii.  19 207,  208,  209,  224 

ii.  20-33 211,  230 

ii.2i 154 

V 105 

158 

.,  211 

149 

6 


V,  I,  9 

V.  3,  4-7,  8 

V.  3-8 

V   3,  4,  7--. 


240 


INDEX  OF   TEXTS 


Exodus. 

xxiv.  4 loi,  189,  232 

xxiv.  5 104 

xxiv  7 j8 

xxiv.  9-11 238 

xxiv.  12 8 

xxv.-xxxi.  bis 91 

xxvi 103 

xxvii.  1-5 214 

xxvii.  1-8 102 

xxviii.  2,  40 153 

xxix.  31 209 

XXX.  1-6,  27 103 

XXX.  23 72 

XXX.  28 102 

xxxi 91 

xxxi.  3 151 

xxxi,  8 103 

xxxi.  9 102 

xxxi.  T3 . .    192 

xxxi.  13,  17 194 

xxxi.  14-16  193 

xxxi.  16-17..      149 

xxxi.  18 190 

xxxii.  II 147 

xxxii.  21,  30,  31   72 

xxxii.  30-34 155 

xxxiii.  7-11 103,  158,  237 

xxxiii.  II 39 

xxxiii.  18,  22 152 

xxxiii.  18-23 237 

xxxiii.  20-23 146 

xxxiv 23,  99,  100 

xxxiv.  I,  4,  14,  17 190 

xxxiv.  I,  11-28 189 

xxxiv.  6,  7 151,  184,   192 

xxxiv.  6-9 155 

xxxiv.  7 T84 

xxxiv.  10  seg 136 

xxxiv.  10-27 149 

xxxiv.  11-13 231 

xxxiv.  14 49,  184,  191 

xxxiv.  14,  16 190 

xxxiv.  18 70,  19s,  196 

xxxiv.  19-20 197 

xxxiv.  20 ig8,  226 

xxxiv.  21 185,  192,   193 


Exodus. 

xxxiv.  22 199,  201 

xxxiv.  23  49 

xxxiv.  23,  24 203 

xxxiv.  25 203,  204 

xxxiv.  26 207,  208 

xxxiv.  27 7,  189,  211 

xxxiv.  33-35 237 

XXXV. -xl.  bis 91 

XXXV.  II,  15 103 

XXXV.  16 102 

xxxvii  .25 103 

xxxviii.  I,  1-7,  30 102 

xxxix.  32,  38 103 

xxxix.  39 102 

xl.  2,  5,  6,  26,  29 103 

xl.  2,  17 70 

xl.  6,  10,  29 102 

Leviticus. 

i.-xvi 91 

i 118 

i.5 "8 

ii.  II 204 

iv.  7,  TO,  25,  30,  34 102 

iv.  7 103 

iv.  13  seg 117 

vii.-ix 91 

vii.  12,  13 204 

xi.  seij  226 

xi.  34 70 

xi.  39,  40 106,  227 

xii.,  xiii.,  xiv.,  xv 106 

XV.  23 152 

xvi 121 

xvii.-xxvi 95,127,  133 

xvii.  3-9 213 

xvii.  7 192 

xvii.  10-14 226 

xvii.  15,  16 106,  226 

xviii    217 

xviii.-xxiii 9^ 

xviii.  6  .y^^ 214 

xviii.  6-16,  17-23 223 

xviii.  15  seg 226 

xix.  2 152 

xix.  3,  30 192 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


247 


Leviticus. 

xix.  4 190 

xix.  9-10 234 

xiT.  15-18 227 

xix.  19 223 

xix.  26 223,  226 

xix.  33-34 s 224 

xix.  35-36 235 

XX.  5-6 192 

XX.  6,  10-21,  27 223 

XX.  7,  8,  26 152 

XX.  9 219 

XX.  25 70 

xxi.  2 217 

xxi.  6-8 152 

xxii.9,  16,  32 152 

xxii.  27 209 

xxiii 106,  195,  199,  203 

xxiii.  3 194 

xxiii  .5 70 

xxiii.  5-6 195 

xxiii.  6-8 196 

xxiii.  10-14 208 

xxiii.  15-21    200 

xxiii.  17 204 

xxiii.  22 234 

xxiii.  34-36,  40-44 201 

xxiv.  10-23 9^ 

xxi V.  17 217 

xxiv.  19  seg 219 

XXV 91,  121,  230 

XXV.  10 72 

XXV.  35,  36 225 

XXV.  37 70 

XXV.  39-46 215 

XXV.  49 217 

xxvi !?»  9i»  231 

xxvi.  2 192 

xxvi.  3-45 64 

xxvi.  9,  42,  45 149,  166 

xxvi.  II  seg , 231 

::xvi.  34  J<? j' 121 

xxvii.  13,  15,  19,  20,  31 155 

xxvii.  26-27 • 197 

Numbers. 
i.  48-x.  28 . , 91 


Numbers. 

i-  1 39 

"•  2 39 

iii.  12  seg 226 

iii.  25 103 

iv.  II - 103 

V.  1 39 

vi 112 

viii.  16  seg 226 

ix.  1 70 

ix.  12 205 

ix.  IS 103 

xi.  18-33 147 

xi.  24.y^/ 158 

xi,  24,  26 103 

xi.  25-29 151 

xii.3 39 

xii.  4  seg 158 

xii.  5,  10 103 

xii.  6 72 

xii.  6-8  237 

xiv.  18-20 15s 

xiv.  21-22 153 

xiv.  T^ 192 

xv.-xix 91 

XV.  39 192 

xvi 79 

xvi.9 49 

xvi.  30 70 

xvii.  21-25 147 

xvii.  22,  23 103 

xviii.  2 103 

xviii.  T2-13 208 

xviii.  15-18 198 

xix 106 

XX     79 

XX.  8-17 148 

XX.  21 73 

xxi.  8-9 147 

xxi.  14 12,  38 

xxi.  21,  31  seg  71 

xxi.  30 72 

xxii.  13,  16 73 

xxiii.-xxiv     95 

xxiii.  1,  14,  29 102 

xxiv.  II 152 

XXV.  12-13 149 


248 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


Numbers. 

xxvii.  II 217 

xxviii 106,  199 

xxviii.-xxix 203 

xxviii. -xxxi 91 

xxviii.  9-10 194 

xxviii,  16 70,  205 

xxviii.  16-17 195 

xxviii.  17-25 T96 

xxviii.  26-31 200 

xxix 199 

xxix.  12-T9,  35-38 202 

xxxi.  14 39 

xxxiii.  2 9 

xxxiii.  3 70 

XXXV 218 

XXXV.  i6-xxxvi.  13 91 

XXXV.  20-21,  22 218 

Deuteronomy. 

i.-xxx 66 

i.  i-xxii.  47 64 

i.  1 37 

ii.5 38 

ii.  12  37»  44»  81 

ii.  30 154 

i".  11,14 37,  44 

iii.  24 49 

iv.  12-16 238 

iv.  13 M9 

iv.  15-19,  24 191 

iv.  19 18,  83 

iv.  20 19,  20 

iv.  34 147 

iv.  37 155 

iv.  40 186 

V 189 

V.  7 49 

V.  8-10 191 

V.  10 15s 

V.  12 192 

V-  12-14 193 

V.  13,  14 73 

V.  14-15 194 

V.  21 152 

V29 183 

V13 7 


Deuteronomy. 
vi.  2 186 

vi.  5 »55 

vi.  18 183 

vii.  2-4 192 

vii.  5 84 

vii.  8,  9,  13  155 

vii .  22 86 

viii.  3-4,  15-16 147 

viii.  18  149,  166 

ix.  9 189 

ix.  26 49 

X.  5 20 

X.6 158 

X.8 39 

X.  8,  9 104 

X.  12,  15 155 

X.  18-19 224 

xi-  1 155 

xi.  6 79 

xi.  9 186 

xii.-xxvi 8,  23,  99 

xii.  3 84 

xii.  5 18,  19,  213 

xii.  5-7,  12-14 212 

xii.  6,  II,  13 213 

xii.  9,  10 20 

xii.  16,  23-27 226 

xii.  25 183 

xii.  26 152 

xii.  27 102 

xiii 223 

xiii.  2 190 

xiii  .2,4,6 146 

xiii.  4,  22 155 

xiii.  16 223 

xiv 226 

xiv.  3-21 106 

xiv.  21 106,  209,  226 

XV 106 

XV.    1-3 121 

XV.  i-iS  230 

XV.  12-18,  16-17 »•    215 

XV.  15 183 

XV.  17 215,  217 

XV.  19-22 197 

XV.  23 226 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


249 


Deuteronomy. 


XVI. 


xvi.  1 70. 

xvi.  1-8 

xvi.  2,  4-7 

xvi.  3-4,  8 

xvi.  8 

xvi.  9-12,  17 

xvi.  II,  12 

xvi.  13-15 

xvi.  16 199, 

xvi.  18-20 

xvi.  2T,  22 

xvii.  3 18, 

xvii.  8  seq. ,  14-20 

xvii.  II   

xvii.  14  seq 

xvii.  18-20 

xviii.  9-14 

xviii.  10-14 

xviii.  15  seq 

xix 

xix.  4  bis 

xix.  5,  II  

xix.  9 

xix.  14 

xix.  15-20 

xix.  21 

XX.  1-15,  19 

XX.   16 

xxi.  10-14 

xxi.  18-21   

xxii.  1-4 

xxii.  9-11 

xxii.  12 

xxii.  13-30 

xxii.  28-29 

xxiii.  6  

xxiii.  ID  seq 

xxiii  .15 

xxiii.  19-21 

xxiv.  5 

xxiv.  6,  10-13 

xxiv.  7 

xxiv.  8 

xxiv.  16 

xxiv.  17-18 

xxiv.  i8,  22 


106 

195 

18 

204 

196 

73 

199 

i«3 

201 

203 

229 

84 

83 

82 

159 
20 

19 
18 


218 
217 
218 

155 

81 

227 

220 

86 

73 

86 

219 

228 

233 
217 
223 
222 

15s 
106 
152 
225 

73 
225 
218 
159 

19 
224 

183 


Deuteronomy. 

xxiv.  T9-22   234 

XXV.  13-15 235 

xxv.  17 86 

XXV.  19 20 

xxvi.  2-1 1 207 

xxvi    13,  15 152 

x?cvi.  17 166 

xxvii.  -xxx 231 

xxvii.  2  seq 38 

xxvii  .6 102 

xxvii.  8 232 

xxvii.  15 190 

xxvii.  19 224 

xxvii  .25 229 

xxviii.-xxxi 17 

xxviii.  36 82 

xxviii.  37  17,  19 

xxviii.  68 83 

xxviii.  69 149 

xxix.  1 19,  20 

xxix.  1-4 147 

xxix.  9,  14,  21,  24,  25 19 

xxix.  9-14 99 

xxix.  12  166 

xxix.  20 149 

xxix.  24 17,  19 

xxx 27 

xxx.  6,  16,  20 155 

xxxi.  1 39 

xxxi.  9 39,  104 

xxxi.  9-11,  24-26 88 

xxxi.  9,  26 8 

xxxi.  14  seq 158 

xxxi.  14,  15 103 

xxxi.  16 192 

xxxi.  18,  20  49 

xxxi.  22 9 

xxxi.  27 72 

xxxii 9,  II,  27,  95 

xxxii.  3-4 15^ 

xxxiii 64,  95 

xxxiii.  1 39 

xxxiii.  8-11 104 

xxxiii.  10 158 

xxxiv.  10 38 

xxxiv.  11-12 6  J 


250 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


Joshua. 

i.  7,8  9 

i.  8 19,  23 

iii.  3,  6 104 

iii.  15-17 147 

iv.  3,  9  104 

iv.  7,  9,  20 79 

iv.  13   73 

iv.  24   147 

V  120 

V.5 "9 

V.  10,    112 

V.  12 37 

V.  14,  15 73 

V.  15 152 

vi.  4,  6 104 

vi.  5 147 

vi.  19 152 

vii.  7,  13,  19,  20 49 

vii.  19 153 

viii.  30 102,  no 

viii.  30  J^^ 38,  232 

viii.  31   9,  102 

ix.  18,  19 49 

X.  12,  13 12 

X.40 73 

X.  40,  42 49 

xi.  II,  T4 73 

xi.  20 154 

xiii.  14,33 49 

xiii.  33 104 

xviii.  6 72 

xviii.  7 104 

xxii.  5  15s 

xxii.  10-34 102 

xxii.  24 49 

xxii.  34 166 

xxiii.  Ti 155 

xxiv.  2,  16 49 

xxiv.  8,  12,  15,  18 71 

xxiv  19 49,  152 

xxiv.  25 149 

xxiv.  26 II 

Judges. 

ii.  5   "o 

ii.  18 , 166 


Judges. 

vi.  24 102,  1 10 

xi.  II no 

xiii,  4-5 112 

xiii.  19 no 

xiv.  15-20 112 

xvii.  13  ..     158 

xviii.  29 36 

XX 119 

xxi.  4  102 

xxi.  8 no 

xxi.   19 1X3 

I.  Samuel. 

ii.  22 103 

iii.  T5 72 

v.-vii  112 

vii.  5   112 

vii.  17 102,  112 

ix.9 150 

\x.i2seq 112 

X 113 

X.  5,  8 112 

xi.   15 1X2 

xiv.  35 X02,  X12 

XV.  21-33 112 

XV.  25 iss 

xvi.  4-5  X12 

xvii.  42.. 72 

XX.  6 112 

XX.  14 72 

xxi.  9 1X3 

II.  Samuel. 

i.  18  12 

vi.  1-17 X14 

vi.  17 104 

vii.  6 104 

vii.  24 x66 

xi.  2 72 

xii.22....    73 

xiv.  27 73 

xviii.  14 73 

xxiii.  5 150 

xxiv.  25 103 

I.  Kings. 
i-  39 104 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


251 


I.  Kings. 

i.  50.  51 102 

i.  50 


..   218 

ii.  3 19 

ii.  28 102,  218 

ii.  28-30 104 

iii.  4 lo^ 

vi,  20 102 

viii     19 

viii.  4 104 

viii.  9.  53.  56 20 

viii.  12,  13 12 

viii.  27  seq 122 

viii.  51 19 

viii.  64 102 

ix 19 

ix.  3,  7,  8 19 

xii .  32 102 

xviii.  30  bis^  32 102 

XX.  32 72 


II.  Kings. 

3f-  31 

xii.  16 

xiv.  6   

xvi.  10 

xvii   , 

xvii.  21   . . .  , 

xviii.  4   

xviii.  12 

xxi.  3,  5-... 
xxi.  8 


xxu.  3  seq 01, 

xxii.  8 

xxii.  8,  II   

xxii.  11-13,  16,  17,  19 

xxiii 

xxiii.  2,  21 I5>  16, 

xxiii.  4,  5,  II,  12,  21-23,  24 

xxiii.  8-20,  15 

xxiii.  25 15,  x6, 


20 
118 
19 
71 
41 
72 

83 
20 
18 
20 

85 
20 

15 
17 
19 
t8 
18 
102 
20 


I.  Chronicles. 

vi.  17  *;.y 103 

vi.  34 22,  103 

ix.  19,  21,  23 103 

XV.  I T04 


I.  Chronicles. 

XV.  17 114 

xvi.  1 104 

xvi.  15 149,  t66 

xvi.  39,  40 114 

xvi.  40 21,  103 

xvii.  1 71 

xvii.  5 104 

xvii.  22 166 

xviii 38 

xxi .  18 102 

xxi.  29  103,  114 

xxii.  X 102 

xxii.  12 21 

xxiii.  29 114,  235 

xxiii.  32 103 

xxviii.  19 114 


II.  Chronicles. 

i-3.  6,  13;  5,  6 

i-  4 ... 


103 

104 

iv.  3 71 

V.  5 104 

vii.  8-10 X14 

viii.  3 "4 

xii.  1 21 

xvii.  9 22,  23 

xix.  8-11 82 

xxiii.  18 22 

xxiv.  6 103 

XXV.  4  22 

xxix.  20-24  117 

xxix.  22 118 

XXX.   16 i2 

xxxi.  I 83 

xxxi .  3,  4 21 

xxxiv.  14 22,  55 

xxxiv.  14,  15,  19,  30 15 

xxxiv.  15 22 

xxxiv.  30 16 

XXXV.  3,  6 15,  16 

xxxv.  12 22 

XXXV.  26 21 

xxxvi.  21 121 


F.ZR.\. 
iii.  1-6 
iii.  2 


122 
22 


252 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


Ezra. 

vi.  18 22 

vii.  6 22 

vii.  10  21 

Nehemiah. 

i.8 22 

ii.  I  70 

viii.  I     22,     23 

viii.  3,  8,  14,  18 22 

viii.  9,  13   21 

viii.  13-17  122 

viii.  17 120 

ix.  3 22 

X.  29,  30 21 

X.34,  37 22 

xii.  44 21 

Esther. 
i.  II 72 

".2,  3,  7 72 

iii.  7  70 

Job. 

vii.  21 155 

xviii.  19 166 

xix.  23 zo 

Psalms. 

v.  9 141 

X.  7   141 

xiv  , 141 

xiv.  2-3 , . . .   141 

xxxii.  1 72 

xxxvi.  1 141 

xl 117,  118 

xl.  7 72 

xl.  8 20 

Iv.  16 f66 

Iviii.  5 71 

Ixxii 153 

Ixxiv     149 

Ixxviii 78,  148 

Ixxviii.  20,  27 217 

Ixxviii.  60,  67 ,    103 

cv       78,  148 

cy.  8  149,  166 


Psalms. 

cvi 149 

cvi.  45 149,  166 

cix.  7 72 

cxi.  5 149,  166 

cxix.  54 166 

cxl.  3 141 

Proverbs, 
x.-xxii,  16 24 

Ecclesiastes. 
vii.  20 141 

Isal^h. 

|i-9 15s 

^v.  3 217 

X.  26 149 

xi.  15-16 149 

xiii.  4 71 

xix.   19 84,    I03 

xxvii.  9 102 

xxxiii.  24 155 

xxxvi.  7 83 

xl.  18 71 

xliii.  16 149 

1-2 149 

li.  10 149 

liii 88,  117 

liii.  10 118 

liii.  12  154 

lix.  7-8  14X 

Ixi.  I » 72 

Jeremiah. 

viii.  8 14 

XXV.  II,  12 121 

xxxiv.  8,  15,  17 73 

xli.  5  seg 116 

EZEKIEL. 

i.  I 72 

iv.  II,  16 235 

viii  3 72 

xvi.  60  fit's,  62 149,  166 

xvii.  22-2 } 127 

XX.  38 166 


INDEX  OF  TEXTS 


253 


EZEKIEL. 

XXX.  24 166 

xxxvi.  28 71 

xxxvii.  1-14,  15-28 127 

xxxviii.-xxxix 127 

xl.-xlviii 115,  126 

xl.  2 72 

xli .  1 103 

xlili.  3 72 

xlv.  18-20 122 

xlvi.  17 72 


Daniel. 


1-4 

ix.  7 

ix.  II,  13 
X.  7-16. . 

X.  II,  16. 


IIOSEA. 

ii-  19 

iv.  8 


viii.  12. 
xiv.  3.. 


Amos. 

»•  9 

V.  25 


72 

154 
22 
72 
71 


230 
118 

155 


166 
119 


MiCAH. 

iii.  II 158 

vi.  7 118 

vii-  18 155 

Zechariah. 

vii.-viii 122 

viii.  8 , 166 

^    ii 149 


Malachi. 
iv.  4 


21 


Matthew. 

ii«-  13 138 

iii.  14  j^^.,  16,  17 139 

iv.  2-7 139 

xix.  7-8 26 


Mark. 
i.  12,  13.. 
i. 


44- 


1-^9 

26 

vii.  10 26 

xii.  26 25 

Luke. 

iii.  21,  22 139 

iii.  23 138 

iv.  I,  2 139 

iv.  5-7 140 

X.  7 27 

XX.  28 26 

XX.  37 27 

xxiv.  44 25 


John. 

i.  29-31,  32-34 139 

'.45 27 

V.  46,  47 27 

vii.  19 26 

vii.  23 25 

Acts. 

iii.  22-24 ;  24 27 

vii.  37 27 

XV.   21 25 

XXVi.  22 27 

Romans. 

iii.  9-18 141 

X.  5,  19 27 

I.  Corinthians. 

ix.  14 26 

xi.  23  seg 27 

IT.  Corinthians. 

iii.  15  25 

Hebrews. 

iv.  7 26 

vii .  14 26 

viii.  5 27 

ix.  19 27 

X.  28 26 

xii.  21 27 


INDEX  OF  HEBREW  WORDS  AND  PHRASES.' 


n^3i<  (pp.  70,  195, 196, 229.) 

PX  (p.  235-) 

nmx(n)  (pp.  -o,  169, 212.) 

^:nx  (p.  4*^.) 

mn^  ^jnx  (p.  49.) 

3n{<  (p.  168.) 

nnyn  ^nx  (p.  103.) 

-ly^o  ^nx  (pp.  103,  158.) 

nn5<  ,n^x  (p.  223.) 

Tnxj  .nrnx  (p.  177.) 

nn\s(3)  (p.  218.) 

v'ii  tr"'x  (p.  173.) 

ni?3N(i?)  ,^DwS  (pp.  70, 175.) 

ni3N*  \ni?N*  (p.  166.) 

n^n^N  (pp.   II,  46   se^.,    52,  56,   165,  175, 

225.) 

DM^N(n)  (pp.  165,  166,  215.) 

D-nns  DM^x  (pp.  49.  169, 223.) 

nn^"in  nh^  (p.  175-) 

D>i?^^N*  (p.  174.) 

••■nc^  hii  (pp.  47,  165, 166.) 

n»i<  (p.  70.) 

pN  .DJON  ,njDN*  (p.  70.) 

2Dh  r?2)S  (p.  154.) 

^DJX  ,^JX  (pp.  71,  165,  166,  180.) 

mn^  •'jj^  (pp.  165,  166,  172.) 

Fj^DS  (p.  202.) 

n-iN*  (p.  218.) 

(nn^on)  Y')i<{n)  (pp.  70,  169,  170.) 

nn  (p.  217.) 

-inn  (p.  169.) 

nnx  n'l  (p.  178.) 

Dnny  n'3  (p.  169.) 


'  Some  of  ihe  words  contained  in  this  int'ex  are  cited,  in  the  passages  referred  to,  in 
the  English  translation. 

(254) 


INDEX  OF   HEBREW  WORDS  AND  PHRASES  255 


DD^nnC'ID  !533 

(p.  178.) 

^b 

(p.  71.) 

hV2 

(p.  71.) 

I'Vi  .iy3 

(p.  71.) 

innp^  iy3 

(p.  170.) 

wS"in 

(p.  77.) 

rh)V  nnn 

(pp.  150,  176.) 

^co 

(p.  209.) 

nxr^'^a 

(p.  218.) 

-i*ja 

(p.  71.) 

n^ina 

(p  222.) 

^x^ 

(pp.  155,  171.) 

x;i:i 

(p.  176.) 

ni^j^j 

(p.  178.) 

^ny 

(p.  71.) 

P21 

(P    170.) 

ns  13^ 

(p.  71.) 

Dy  -1-n 

(P-  71.) 

nim 

(p.  71.) 

(D2  DH^m)  n  vm 

(p.  I74-) 

yoi 

(p.  225.) 

'"•-^^ 

(p.  73)    for    r\V\ 

im 

(p.  72.) 

pinn 

(p.  218.) 

"i^^in 

(pp.  73,  I79-) 

TIDTH 

(pp.  213.  230.) 

D\-l!?N*i'  (D3^)  HM 

(pp.  165,  166.) 

n^l2M 

(p.  170.) 

D^ii^n  D'JHDn 

(p.  171.) 

li^n 

(p.  72)   for  nph 

nipnn  ihn 

(p.  173.) 

n^pn 

(p.  228.) 

nnn  D-p^ 

(pp.  149,  166.) 

^nnn  nx  'n^Dpn 

(p.  165.) 

Tipn 

(p.  204.) 

nn  .n!?  n-c'pn 

(p.  15-I.) 

Ni:n  13  n-'m    (p.  T70.) 
ynbi^'o  nwNi^i   (p.  174-) 


256  INDEX  OF  HEBREW  WORDS  AND  PHRASES 

niT  (pp.  io6,  204,  206,  209.) 

nD2(n)  n3T  (p.  206.) 

noDH  :n  nnr  (p.  206.) 

D^Di?L*>n  n^T  (p.  204.) 

nn3  nsr  (pp-  149.  1-5,  166.) 

n^DT  (p-  1 73-) 


:i3n 

(p.  203.) 

nrn 

(p.  72.) 

(3^5)  p-in  ,pTn 

(pp.  154,  179.  i 

nfc^on  ,xt3n 

(pp.  72, 105.) 

^^n 

(p.  174.J 

I'Dn 

(p  204.) 

n^si  ion 

(p-  151-) 

^DD£^♦Dl  \i'ipn 

(p.  173.) 

Din 

(p.  223.) 

n&?-i»03iD)  navj 

(p.  72.) 

D3^n^&<  ni.T  ^:x  ■'^  nnv^' 

(p.  165.) 

^^yn^ 

(p.  223.) 

mn^ 

,pp   II,  46  se^., 

,  52,  56,  165,  etc.) 

n^^ 

(pp.  73,  I79-) 

-1DT3^ 

(p.  215.) 

ni<"iD(n)  jiD^ 

(p.  72.) 

N3V  «v^ 

(p.  73.) 

n-i^ 

(p    72.) 

(lb)  T3Dn  ,133  (pp.  154, 179.) 

1U3  (p.  152.) 

2^'3  ,1^2^  (pp-  198.  206.) 

D3D  (p.  78.) 

mD3  (p.  217.) 

nnn  ni3  (p.  149 ) 

32^  ,2h  (p-  72.) 

os^niii'  ,Dnii^  (p- 177.) 

^^^1''i?  (p.  171-) 

bi?  (p.  176.) 

nn''-Dn^nDc*?o^  (p.  176.) 

nn::>i^  (p.  172.) 

1ND3  ,iN*o  (p-  177.) 

HNO  ,nxD  (p.  176.) 


INDEX  OF   HEBREW    WORDS  AND  PHRASES  257 

DnniD  ,Dni:?3  ."1^:10  (pp.  165.  i^'6, 177.) 

mo  (p.  235.) 

nnv^fD  (p.  I93-) 

n^vno  (p-  1 79-) 

nU)D     (pp.  73,  I79-) 

TD    (p.  175.) 

nSl;'3?D      (p.   222.) 

nx^D  ip.  225.) 

HDN^r^  (pp-  72,  185,  186,  194.) 

is^ro  (pp.  230, 231.) 

nnjo  (pp.  105,  199, 200  seq.) 

^VD  (pp.  154,  179.) 

(Dn^)  nc'yQ  (pp.  171, 185.) 

n3^*D  ,n32fr:)  (pp.  84,  loi,  231, 232.) 

niXD  (pp.  195, 204,  229.) 

mp  Nnpro  (p-  194 ) 

nnp^  (p.  I73-) 

n:pD  (p.  177.) 

nsn^D  (p.  72.) 

n-iic'JD  (p.  235.) 

D^LDS^'O     (p.  214.) 
^pL**D     (p    235.) 

"linro   'p.  173.) 

T]\>^i     (pp-  165,  166.) 
«U:     (pp-  88,  150.) 

r]2i:  (p-  106.) 

Dmj  (p.  106.) 

ns"i?oi>  nnnj  (p  72) 

ID^:  (p-  70.) 

-idd:  (p.  216.) 

ni^ini  lyj  (p-  222 ) 

D^^QJ     (p.  228  ) 

(D"ix)  ::'2J   (pp.  175, 177. 217, 218.) 

NL":     (P-  1 55-) 

pv  ,xt:n  x-j'J   (p-  174 ) 
myn  ^j^-c^j  ,n^l*'j   (pp-  n^.  179, 225.) 
no*i:'j   (p-  73-) 
|h:    (p.  73)  for  n^n 
':th  ,i'2  in:'  (p-  171-) 


258  INDEX  OF  HEBREW   WORDS  AND  PHRASES 


TD 

(P-' 

79.) 

n3D 

(p- 

202.) 

n^D 

(p- 

155) 

i^pD 

(p. 

180.) 

mv 

(p. 

178.) 

fliy 

(P 

178.) 

-n  niy 

(p. 

72.) 

m^iy 

(p. 

212.) 

ry 

(pp 

.  198,  206.) 

mn^ 

^2  hii  hv 

(p. 

I79-) 

tJ'np 

,n^:D  Dy 

(p. 

169.) 

D^^y 

(P- 

177.) 

n'DV 

(P- 

173.) 

noy 

(p 

200.) 

py  ,njy 

(p- 

217.) 

r\]r\  Dvn  Dvy 

(p. 

176.) 

nivy 

(pp 

•  19^, 

203.) 

n-iy 

(p. 

78.) 

m-iy 

(p 

214.) 

nony 

(p. 

218,) 

^n^v  ,n)^v  .int^y 

,it:^y  ,nc*y 

(pp 

'•  73.  77.) 

nnt^  ni^'y 

(p 

194.) 

ms 

(PF 

)•  155, 

171.) 

D^cys 

(p. 

203.) 

na"i")  ms 

(P- 

175.) 

Ts 

(P- 

178.) 

|x^; 

(pp.  198, 

206.) 

N3^: 

(p. 

73.) 

n\s2V 

(p. 

178.) 

mv 

(p. 

217.) 

nnv 

(P- 

218.) 

i^* 

(p. 

79.) 

tj^np  .t^^np 

(P- 

152,  I 

93.) 

mn 

^  "js  c^np 

(p. 

173.) 

wp 

(P- 

190.) 

r^p 

(P 

.  178.) 

in-ipro  ,p"ip^  '^^P 

(p. 

171.) 

]2ip 

(pp.  105, 

209.) 

INDEX  OF  HEBREW   WORDS  AND  PHRASES         959 


HNn 

(p.  150-) 

n'L*\s-i 

(p.  20S.) 

D-^:i  ,^n 

(pp.  iSo,  203.) 

on 

(p.  1 79-) 

nn-i 

(p.  73)  for  mn 

cjn3-i  ,C'Dn 

(p.  177.) 

yvi 

(P-  215.) 

mx::'  ,-in»l*' 

(pp.  173,  217.) 

Dati> 

(pp.  73,  179.) 

n3c> 

(pp.  193,  194  ) 

r\n2^ 

(pp.  179,  194.) 

ntr 

(pp.  198,  206.) 

DC^'  IDC'  ,|3L''^  ,pC' 

(pp.  172,  213) 

n^^i?^ 

(pp.  106,  212.) 

ntsDC'  ,oct^ 

(p.  230.) 

(mc'vij)  '\D^ 

(pp.  i6q,  172.) 

i^:^ 

(pp.  217,  218.) 

n'lv^ 

(p.  169.) 

nnsE^ 

(p.  70.) 

D^DQEJ' 

(p.  178.) 

Y")^ 

(P-  175  ) 

min  (p.  106.) 

h:iV  ,bin(N^)  (p.  171.) 

-iin  (p.  180) 

min  (pp.  8,  14,  16, 17.) 

niiT  riDy^n  .nnyin  (p.  172.) 

nc'in  (p.  17S.) 

iry  Dinn(N^)  (p.  170.) 

D'C'nn  (p  103.) 

nrL^n  ns^pn  (p.  202.) 

r\'3nn  (p.  225.) 


THE    W^RITINaS    OK 

PROFESSOR   CHARLES   A.   BRIGGS,  D.D 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS,   PUBLISHERS. 


The   Defence   of   Professor    Briggs 

before  the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  December  13,  14,  15,  ami  K), 

1892.     Crown  octavo,  paper,  50  cents,  nel. 
This    argument    in  the  greatest   of    the  ecclesiastical  trials    of  our  day  is 
destined  to  become  historical,  and   its   importance  to  all  who  would   inform 
themselves  as  to  the  position  of    the  defendant  is,   of  course,   of    the  first 
importance. 

The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Inaugural  Address  of  Professor  Charles  A.  Brigi^s,   D.D.,  upon 

his  transfer  to  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology  in 

the  Union  Theological  Seminary  of  New  York.      A  new  edition, 

with  a  preface  and  additional  notes.    Crown  octavo,  paper,  50  cents, 

net. 

"In  this  pamphlet  is  to  be  found  a  full  and  fair  statement  of  Dr.  Briggs' 

position,  and  the  adherents  of  nearly  all  the  different  creeds  will  read  it  with  a 

recognition  of  its  great  importance  as  a  manifestation  of  the  trend  of  current 

religious  thought.     Dr.  Briggs  is  very  outspoken  in  his  criticism  of  the  barriers 

which  an  extreme  dogmatism  has  raised  against  a  common-sense  study  of  the 

Rible The  strength  of  Dr.  Briggs' argument  is  based  on  the  assertion  that 

the  ethical  element  in  the  Bible  has  been  neglected,  while  the  purely  theological 
tenets  have  been  unduly  brought  into  prominence.  '  The  greatest  sin  against 
the  Bible,'  he  says,  '  has  been  the  neglect  of  the  ethics  of  Jesus.'  " 

The  Case  against  Professor  Briggs. 

The  Charges  and  Specifications  submitted  to  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York,  October,  1891,  and  the  Response  of  Professor  Briggs, 
November  4  ;  the  Action  of  the  Presbytery  in  Dismissing  the 
Case  ;  the  Complaint  to  the  Synod,  the  Appeal  of  the  Prosecuting 
Committee  to  the  General  Assembly,  November  13  ;  the  Argument 
of  Professor  Briggs  before  the  General  Assembly  against  Enter- 
taining and  Sustaining  the  Appeal,  May  26,  1S92,  and  the  Action 
of  the  General  Assembly.     Crown  octavo,  paper,  50  cents,  net. 

Biblical  History. 

A    Lecture    delivered    at    Union    Theological    Seminary.     Crown 

octavo,  paper,  30  cents,  net. 
'•  It  epitomizes  the  consensus  of  scholarship  as  to  the  formation  of  the  Old 

Testament  and  shows  its  splendid   results In  this  little  pamphlet  the 

ordinary  reader  can  get  the  pith  of  the  controversial  literature  of  tlic  greatest  of 
sci)olars." — The  Critic. 


PROFESSOR  BRIO  OS'S   WRITINGS. 


The  Higlier  Criticism  of  tlie  Hexa- 
teucli* 

By  Charles  Augustus  Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Pro- 
fessor of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, New  York.     Crown  octavo,  $1.75. 

The  most  prominent  exponent  of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures  in  America  is  Professor  Briggs.  If  he  is  not  at  the  same 
time  the  most  learned  and  fully  equipped  scholar  among  us  in  this  field, 
it  would  not  be  easy  to  name  his  peer.  For  many  years  his  contributions 
to  the  literature  of  the  subject  in  the  great  theological  reviews  have 
been  widely  read  and  have  been  the  object  of  much  criticism  from  the 
adherents  of  the  opposite  school.  Owing  to  the  prominence  and  the 
great  importance  of  the  trial  to  which  he  has  been  subjected  because  of 
his  views  on  Old  Testament  Criticism,  his  interpretation  of  the  princi- 
ples that  he  champions  is  of  the  highest  consequence. 

Many  years  ago  he  began  the  preparation  of  a  book  on  the  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch,  but  deeming  the  times  not  yet  ripe  for  it, 
it  was  laid  aside  for  other  work.  The  events  of  the  past  few  months 
render  it  necessary  for  the  author  to  define  his  position  in  regard  to 
the  Hexateuch,  and  for  this  reason  he  publishes  this  volume,  which  pre- 
sents the  result  of  his  studies  and  includes  a  large  amount  of  fresh 
evidence,  which  now  appears  for  the  first  time. 

The  results  of  his  researches  correspond,  in  the  main,  with  the 
opinions  which  have  been  formed  independently  by  leading  Biblical 
scholars  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  But  it  is  now  time  that  these  ques- 
tions should  no  longer  be  confined  to  theological  schools  and  profes- 
sional circles.  It  is  with  the  aim  of  contributing  to  the  readjustment 
of  opinions  and  to  a  better  understanding  and  higher  appreciation  of 
the  documents  of  the  Bible  that  the  book  has  been  written,  which  is 
designed  for  the  general  public  rather  than  for  Hebrew  students,  and, 
for  the  most  part,  technical  material  has  been  put  in  the  Appendix, 
which  constitutes  a  considerable  part  of  the  volume. 


PROFESSOR  BRIG  OS'S   WRTTLXOS. 


Tlic    Bible,    the    Churcli,    and    the 
Reason. 

The  Three  Great  Fountains  of  Divine  Authority.  By  Charlks  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,     Crown  octavo,  $[.75. 

"  It  consists  of  lectures  delivered  at  different  times  since  the  recent  assault 
upon  him.  In  these  lectures  he  does  not  indicate  the  least  inclination  to  beat  a 
retreat,  cry  for  quarter,  or  even  secure  a  truce.  And  yet,  with  some  few  excep- 
tions, he  does  not  exhibit  personal  feeling,  nor  defend  himself  personally  from 
the  charges  made  against  him.  He  simply  elaborates  and  substantiates  the 
positions  in  his  inaugural  which  have  subjected  him  to  public  criticism  and  to  a 
possible  trial  for  heresy." — T/ie  Christian  Uni07i. 

"  The  problems  which  are  discussed  with  masterly  power  in  this  volume  are 
not  those  of  Presbyterianism,  or  of  Protestantism,  but  of  Christianity,  and, 
indeed,  of  all  Biblical  religion.  To  any  man  for  whom  the  question  of  God  and 
revelation  has  an  endlessly  fascinating  interest,  the  book  will  prove  suggestive  and 
stimulating.  We  cannot  see  why  even  tlie  Israelite  and  the  Roman  Cathohc  should 
not  desire  to  taste— despite  the  traditions  of  synagogue  and  Mother  Church — 
this  latest  forbidden  fruit  of  the  tree  of  knowledge." — The  Literary  World. 

"  But  on  a  calm  review  of  this  book,  while  making  due  allowance  for  some  of 
the  characterizations  of  his  opponents,  and  without  entering  into  the  merits  of 
the  subject  involved,  one  must  reach  the  candid  conclusion  that  Professor  Briggs 
is  deeply  reverent  and  devout  in  his  attitude  towards  the  Word  of  God  ;  tliat  he 
is  conscientiously  and  earnestly  aiming  at  its  exaltation  and  its  stronger  hold 
upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men.  He  says  :  '  Criticism  makes  the  Bible 
more  real,  more  historic,  more  pregnant  with  holy  meaning  than  ever  before. 
....  Think  not  the  critics  are  destroying  the  Bible  which  they  study  with  so 
much  enthusiasm  and  love.  They  have  enthroned  it  in  a  higher  position  than 
it  has  ever  held  before  in  the  estimation  of  the  world.'  Surely,  an  impartial 
judgment  will  not  fail  to  give  full  credit  for  purity  of  motive  and  loftiness  of 
purpose  to  a  man  who  writes  like  this," — The  Evangelist. 

*'  It  deals,  as  the  author  observes,  with  *  matters  which  lie  at  the  root  of  our 
common  Christianity,'  and  largely,  at  any  rate,  'with  questions  of  truth  and 
fact,'  to  be  determined,  not  by  hasty  and  superficial  writers  in  periodicals,  but 
'by  patient,  diligent,  painstaking,  exhaustive  investigation  of  truth  and  fact.' 
(Preface  p.  ix.)  It  appeals,  therefore,  to  men  of  all  shades  of  churchmanship, 
provided  that  they  recognize  the  duty  of  continually  absorbing  fresh  elements 
of  truth,  which  both  may  and  must  more  or  less  modify  the  conceptions  already 
adopted  by  the  common  consent  of  past  ages.  But,  if  I  may  say  so,  it  appeals 
most  of  all  to  those  who  attach  the  highest  value  to  the  principles  of  the  Refor- 
mation, and  who,  therefore,  recognize  a  Bible  within  the  Bible,  of  which  the 
experience  of  the  Christian  life  in  the  community  and  in  the  individual  is  the 
true  test." — Professor  T.  K.  Cheyne,  D.D.,  in  the  London  Academy. 


PROFESSOR  BRIO  OS'S   WRITINGS. 


Biblical  Study. 

Its  Principles,  Methods,  and  History,  together  with  a  Catalogue 
of  Books  of  Reference.  By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward 
Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York.     Fourth  Edition.     One  volume,  crown  8vo, 

$2.50. 

'*  A  choice  book,  for  which  wo  wish  wide  circulation  and  deep  influence  in  its  own 
laud  and  also  recognition  among  ub.  The  author  maintains  his  position  with  so  much 
spirit  aud  in  such  beautiful  language  that  his  book  makes  delightful  reading,  and  it  is 
particularly  instructive  for  Germans  on  account  of  the  very  characteristic  extracts 
from  the  writings  of  English  theologians  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries. 
Moreover,  he  is  unusually  familiar  with  German  literature  of  recent  date  as  well  as 
with  that  of  the  earlier  period.''— Zarncke's  Lileraturisches  Centralblait  fur  Deutsch- 
land. 

"  Here  is  a  theological  writer,  thoroughly  scientific  in  his  methods,  and  yet  not 
ashamed  to  call  himself  evangelical.  One  great  merit  of  this  handbook  is  the  light 
which  it  throws  on  the  genesis  of  modern  criticism  and  exegesis.  Those  who  use  it 
will  escape  the  crudities  of  many  English  advocates  of  half -understood  theories.  Not 
the  least  of  its  merits  is  the  well-selected  catalogue  of  books  of  reference— English, 
French,  and  German.  We  are  sure  that  no  student  will  regret  sending  for  the  book." 
—  The  Academy,  London. 

"  Dr.  Briggs  begins  with  a  chapter  upon  the  advantages  of  Biblical  study,  and  the 
subjects  of  the  following  chapters  are :  Exegetical  Theology,  the  Languages  of  the 
Bible,  the  Bible  and  Criticism,  the  Canon  and  Text  of  the  Bible,  Higher  Criticism, 
Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,  Hebrew  Poetry,  Interpretation  of  Scripture,  Biblical 
Theology,  and  the  Scriptures  as  a  Means  of  Grace.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  subjects 
occupy  a  wide  range,  and,  ably  treated  as  they  are.  the  volume  becomes  one  of  real 
value  and  utility.  Appended  to  the  work  is  a  valuable  catalogue  of  books  of  reference 
in  biblical  studies,  and  three  indexes— of  Scriptures,  of  topics,  and  of  books  and 
authors.  The  publishers  have  done  honor  to  the  work,  and  it  deserved  it.''— The 
Churchman. 

*'  The  minister  who  thoroughly  masters  this  volume  will  find  himself  mentaliy  in- 
vigorated, as  well  as  broadened  in  his  scope  of  thought ;  will  almost  certainly  be  able  to 
better  satisfy  himself  in  his  understanding  of  what  the  truth  is  which  from  the  Bible 
he  ought  to  preach  to  men  ;  and  so  will  speak  from  his  pulpit  with  new  force,  and 
find  his  words  mightier,  through  God,  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds."— i?05toM 
Conqregalionalist. 

"After  all  that  we  have  heard  of  the  higher  criticism,  it  is  refreshing  to  find  so 

scholarly  and  trenchant  defences  of  the  old  paths His  historical  account  of  the 

movement  and  developement  among  the  English-speaking  scholars  is  very  valuable. 
This,  and  the  chapter  on  the  '  Literary  Study  of  the  Bible,'  are  among  the  best  in  this 
excellent  book."— A-i^w  York  Christian  Advocate  (Methodist). 

"  We  are  constrained  to  rank  this  book  as  one  of  the  signs  of  the  times  in  the  Amer- 
ican church.  It  marks  the  rising  tide  of  Biblical  scholarship.  Christian  liberty  of 
thought  and  evangelical  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures."— C'AnA-^ia»  Unimi. 

"  There  are  many  grounds  on  which  the  work  may  be  earnestly  commended.  Large 
reading  in  German  and  Engli^^h,  quick  apprehension  of  the  salient  points  of  opposing 
theories,  an  unflagging  earnestness  of  purpose,  and  very  positive  belief  in  his  positions 
conspire  to  make  the  work  instructive  and  attractive.  But  above  all  these  excellences 
there  shines  out  the  author's  deep  reverence  for  the  whole  BWAq."— The  Examiner 
(Baptist,  N.  Y.) 


PROFESSOR  BRIOGS\S   WRTTIXQS. 


Messianic  Prophecy. 

The  Prediction  of  the  fulfilment  of  Redemption  through  the 
Messiah.  A  critical  study  of  the  Messianic  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  order  of  their  development.  By  Charlks  A. 
Briggs,  D.D.,  Kdward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology 
in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York.  One  volume, 
crown  octavo,  $2. 50. 

"  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  subject  of  no  common  interest,  and  this  book  is  no  ordin- 
ary book.  It  is,  on  tlie  contrary,  a  work  of  the  very  first  order,  the  ripe  product  of 
years  of  study  upon  the  highest  themes.     It  is  exegesis  in  master-hand,  about  its 

nobles^t  business It  has  been  worth  while  to  commend  this  book  at  some 

length  to  the  attention  of  Bible  students,  because  both  the  subject  and  the  treatment 
entitle  it  to  rank  among  the  very  foremost  works  of  the  generation  in  the  dei)artment 
of  Exegetical  Theology.  Union  Seminary  is  to  be  congratulated  that  it  is  one  of  her 
Professors  who,  in  a  noble  line  of  succession  has  produced  it.  The  American  Church 
ia  to  be  congratulated  that  the  author  is  an  American,  and  Presbyterians  that  he  is  a 
Presbyterian.  A  Church  that  can  yield  such  books  has  large  possibilities."— iV«?w 
Yoik  Evangelist. 

"It  is  second  in  importance  to  no  theological  work  which  has  appeared  in  thifl 
country  during  the  present  ctiwtnry.'"— The  Oriiic. 

"Ilis  arduous  labor  has  been  well  expended,  for  he  has  finally  produced  a  book 
which  will  give  great  pleasure  to  Christians  of  all  denominations The  pro- 
found learning  displayed  in  the  book  commends  it  to  the  purchase  of  all  clergymen 
who  wish  for  the  most  critical  and  exact  exposition  of  a  difficult  theme  ;  while  its 
earnestness  and  eloquence  will  win  for  it  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  devout  lay- 
man."—,V.  Y.  Journal  of  Commerce. 

"It  is  rich  with  the  fruits  of  years  of  zealous  and  unwearied  study,  and  of  an  ample 
learning.  In  it  we  have  the  first  English  work  on  Messianic  Prophecy  which  stands 
on  the  level  of  modern  Biblical  studies.  It  is  one  of  the  most  important  and  valuable 
contributions  of  American  scholarships  to  those  studies.  It  is  alwa3's  more  than  in- 
Btructive  :  it  is  spiritually  helpful.  We  commend  the  work  not  only  to  ministers,  but 
to  intelligent  laymen."— T^A^  Independent. 

"On  the  pervading  and  multiform  character  of  this  promise,  see  a  recent,  as  well 
as  valuable  authority,  in  the  volume  of  Dr.  Briggs,  of  the  New  York  Theological 
Seminary,  on  'Messianic  Prophecy.' "—W.  E.  Gladstone. 

"  Prof.  Briggs'  Messianic  Prophecy  is  a  most  excellent  book,  in  which  I  greatly 
rejoice."— Prof.  Franz  Dei.itzsch. 

"  All  scholars  will  join  in  recognizing  its  singular  usefulness  as  a  text-book.  It  has 
been  much  wanted."— Rev.  Canon  Cheyne. 

"It  is  a  book  that  will  be  consulted  and  prized  by  the  learned,  and  that  will  add  to 
the  author's  deservedly  high  reputation  for  scholarship.  Evidences  of  the  ability, 
learning  and  patient  research  of  the  author  are  apparent  from  the  beginning  to  the 
end  of  the  volume,  while  the  style  is  remarkably  fine.'"— I'hlla.  Prenbytenan. 

"  His  new  book  on  Messianic  Phrophecy  is  a  worthy  companion  to  his  indispens- 
able text-book  on  Biblical  study  ....  What  is  most  of  all  required  to  iusure  the 
future  of  Old  Testament  studies  in  this  country  is  that  those  who  teach  should  satisfy 
their  students  of  their  historic  connection  with  the  religion  and  theology  of  the  jjasl. 
Prof.  Briggs  has  the  consciousness  of  such  a  connection  in  a  very  full  degree,  and 
yet  he  combines  this  with  a  frank  and  unreserved  adhesion  to  the  jjrinciples  of  modern 

criticisms He  has  produced  the  first  English   text-book  on  the  subject  of 

Messianic  Prophecy  which  a  modern  teacher  can  use." — The  London  Academy. 


PMOFMSSOR  BRTGO.Tfi    WRITINGS. 


Whitlier  ? 

A  Tlieoloii,ical  Question  for  the  Times  By  Charles  Augustus 
Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of  Biblical  Theology 
in  the  Union  Theolo.ujical  Seminary,  New  York.  Third  Edition. 
One  volume,  crown  8vo,  $1.75. 

"He  shows  tnat  genuine  Christianity  has  nothing  to  lose,  but  much  to  gain,  by  un- 
fettered thought  and  by  the  ripest  modern  scholarship  ;  that  the  doctrines  which  pro- 
gressive theology  tlireateus  are  no  essential  part  of  the  historic  faith,  but  raiher  out- 
worn garments,  woven  with  warp  and  woof  of  tradition  and  speculation  ;  that  being 
hung  upon  the  noble  form  of  Christianity,  have  obscured  its  real  proportions,  and 
that  'the  higher  criticism  '  of  which  timid  and  unscholarly  souls  arc  so  much  afraid, 
is  really  making  the  Bible  more  manifesily  ttie  book  of  (iod,  by  relieving  it  from  the 
false  interpretations  of  men.''''— The  rress,  Philadelphia. 

"  The  book  is  a  strong  one.  It  is  packed  with  weighty  matter.  Its  reach  is  larger 
than  any  of  the  author's  other  wDrks,  though  its  compass  is  smaller.  It  contains  only 
300  pages,  yet  it  is  a  critical  treatise  on  Westminster  and  modern  theology,  and  also 
on  church  life  and  Christian  unity.  It  is  written  in  nervous,  virile  Englisli  that  holds 
attention.  It  has  unusual  grasp  and  force.  The  title  and  the  chapter  headings  sug- 
gest compression:  'Whither?'  'Drifting,'  'Orthodoxy,'  'Changes,'  'Shifting,' 
'  Excesses,'  '  Failures,'  'Departures,'  'Perplexities,'  'Barriers,'  'Thither.'  There 
is  a  whole  history  in  some  of  these  words,  and  a  whole  sermon  in  others."— TA* 
Critic.,  New  York. 

"At  the  same  time  it  is  irenic  both  in  tone  and  tendency.  It  is  noble  from 
beginning  to  end,  though  the  author  may  possibly  place  unnecessary  emphasis  on 
the  organic  unity  of  the  different  denominations  of  Christendom  as  the  condition 
precedent  for  a  true  catholic  unity.  There  is  not  a  touch  or  smell  of  rationalism  or 
rationalistic  speculation  in  the  book,  and  freely  as  the  author  deals  with  his  oppo- 
nents, it  is  an  honest  freedom,  which  will  promote  good  feeling  even  amid  debate."— 
Tlie  Independent. 

American  Presby terianism : 

Its  Origin  and  Early  History,  together  with  an  Appendix  of  Let- 
ters and  Documents,  many  of  which  have  recently  been  discovered. 
By  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  Edward  Robinson  Professor  of 
Biblical  Theology  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 
I  volume,  crown  8vo,  with  Maps.     $3.00. 

"  Tl.e  Presbyterian  Church  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  enthusiasm  and  antiquar- 
ian research  of  Professor  Briggs.  He  seems  to  have  seized  the  foremost  place  among 
them,  and  his  vigorous,  skilful,  and  comprehensive  researches  put  all  Protestant 
Christians,  and  especially  Congregationalists,  under  obligation  to  'him.^^— Boston 
Congregationalist. 

"This  is  an  admirable  and  exhaustive  work,  full  of  vigorous  thinking,  clear  and 
careful  statement,  incisive  and  judicious  criticism,  minute  yet  comprehensive  research. 
It  is  such  a  book  as  only  a  man  with  a  gift  for  historical  inquiry  and  an  enthusiasm 
for  the  history  and  principles  of  his  Church  could  have  produced.  It  represents  an 
amazing  amount  of  labor.  Dr.  Briggs  seems  to  have  searched  every  available  source, 
British  and  American,  for  printed  or  v/ritten  documents  bearing  on  his  subjects,  and 
he  has  met  with  wonderful  success.  He  has  made  many  important  discoveries,  illus- 
trative of  the  Puritan  men  and  i)eriod,  useful  to  himself,  but  certain  also  to  be  helpful 
to  all  future  inquiries  in  this  field."— i?/i/i6'A  Quarterly  Review. 

CHARLES   SCRIBIMER'S  SONS,  Publishers, 

743   and   745   Broadway,   New  York, 


BS1215.4.B85 

The  higher  criticism  of  the  Hexateuch. 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00038  2277 


